Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-04-01 Thread Suresh Bhandari
/6516 Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16 -- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:42:00 +0545 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question From: bring...@gmail.com To: ikiz...@hotmail.com CC: singh8...@in.com; ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com; ccie_voice

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread Suresh Bhandari
A very basic QoS question, I must say. Go to the intended interface, issue bandwidth 384 command and go into frame-relay dlci. run the auto qos voip trust It will prepare you the required MQC. In the same sub-interface the auto qos adds frame-relay ip rtp header-compression, you should remove

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread ikizoo4 kwon
i am looking at this issue for a while,,thing is cRTP header size is 2 or 4 bytes. (8 + 2 + 20)*8*50 = 12 (8 + 4 + 20)*8*50 = 12.8 i know 4 bytes is in case of UDP checksum, but in the real Lab what is the case? To: ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com; ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com From:

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread Suresh Bhandari
I must say, rather an easy one. Go to the intended interface, issue bandwidth 384 command and go into frame-relay dlci. run the auto qos voip trust It will prepare you the required MQC. In the same sub-interface the auto qos adds frame-relay ip rtp header-compression, you should remove this to

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread ikizoo4 kwon
how you got the 49? Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:17:28 +0545 From: bring...@gmail.com To: singh8...@in.com CC: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com; ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question A very basic QoS question, I must say. Go to the intended interface

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread Suresh Bhandari
In the lab, I really don't know. But your calculation of the bandwidth is correct. And somewhere I read about some ±10% margin on that, so I had 1k bandwidth added to ensure the calls. Just a nonsense thought, you can say :) Thanks! On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22 PM, ikizoo4 kwon

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread Suresh Bhandari
Actually it was ±5% overhead. So it comes to 48.72 for 4 calls. So 49 is my fav. HTH On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Suresh Bhandari bring...@gmail.comwrote: In the lab, I really don't know. But your calculation of the bandwidth is correct. And somewhere I read about some ±10% margin on

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread ikizoo4 kwon
bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: any Queueing queue limit 64 packets (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops/flowdrops) 0/0/0/0 (pkts output/bytes output) 5/6516 Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:42:00 +0545 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question

2013-03-27 Thread Suresh Bhandari
/total drops/no-buffer drops/flowdrops) 0/0/0/0 (pkts output/bytes output) 5/6516 Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16 -- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:42:00 +0545 Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS big question From: bring...@gmail.com To: ikiz