112 is the right answer not 160z -- Vik Malhi – CCIE #13890 Managing Partner / Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. Mailto: [email protected] Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 ext 420 Fax: +1.810.454.0130
On Jun 9, 2012, at 14:16, "Jason Aarons (AM)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Vic has some examples where he indicates to allow 4 G729s call thru rsvp to > use “ip rsvp 160”, yet the SRND “shows ip rsvp 112” > > I can see if you want ring-in on 4 G.729 calls you would need 160. But 3 > G.729 calls connected and then 1 ring-in would be 112. > > If I asked you to allow 4 calls in would you assume all 4 ring-in at same > time and setup ip rsvp 160 (4x40) or go with ((N -1) * 24)) +40 = 112 ? > > > > > Configuration Recommendation > > Because the initial reservation will be larger than the actual packet flow, > over-provisioning the RSVP and LLQ bandwidth is required to ensure that the > desired number of calls can complete. > When provisioning the RSVP bandwidth value for N calls, Cisco recommends that > the Nth value be the worst-case bandwidth to ensure that the Nth call gets > admitted. > For example: > •To provision four G.729 streams: > (3 * 24) + 40 = 112 kbps > > Reference > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/8x/cac.html > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out > www.PlatinumPlacement.com
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
