> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mikael Abrahamsson > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Pelle wrote: > > > That depends on the type of video, is it video conferencing > (IP/VC) or > > streaming video (IP/TV)? IP/VC are interactive video, and > have more or > > less the same requirements on latency, jitter and loss as > VoIP. IP/TV on > > the other hand can handle more latency, jitter and loss. > > I am of another opinion. I don't believe in putting bursty > traffic into > LLQ. LLQ should be used for deterministic traffic (ie 20 pps VOIP or > equivalent broadcast video with basically fixed pps and bw/s). > > Some platforms drop packets when it's over the prio limit and > to protect > from starvation of other classes I recommend putting a policer on the > priority class anyway.
In this case I am talking about video conferencing, and it will both be policed and have CAC in place. So while it does have variable bandwidth (depending on compression ratios), I will be accounting for maximum utilization. Given that, it appears to be viable either with both as priority, or video as non-priority bandwidth reservation. It sounds like it's only an issue if you either don't police it (so priority could burst to full link utilization), or if video can burst up to and above the police rate (which would then risk dropping VOIP priority traffic). Thanks for the help, Josh _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
