On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 12:33 PM, danger will <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the great explanation. > In my test basically i've created an artificial congestion using UDP > because the effect of the congestion was mostly felt with UDP so as you > confirmed this method is not effective for UDP based congestions but if we > were to classify and mark and leverage the queuing provided by the mpls > provider, UDP based congestions wouldn't be a problem and voip would be > protected, even if the bandwidth for several sites connected to the mpls > cloud is different right ? > If you're in an MPLS environment, you should absolutely be making use of the proper markings to stick your VOIP traffic in a dedicated strict priority queue on the PE egress interface. The remote ingress queuing stuff is designe for things like branch offices and teleworkers connected via VPN or some other case where you don't have vendor-provided QoS to manage the inbound flows. B* -- Brian C Landers http://www.packetslave.com/ CCIE #23115 (R&S + Security) _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
