RE: QoS issues with LLQ, Fair Queue and Frame Relay

As I understand it the ATA-186 in SIP mode uses UDP port 5060 for
control messages.  The voice-access-list should match that.


On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 11:54, Voll, Scott wrote:
> Are you dedicating bandwidth to the control protocol?  I'm doing
> everything with ip precendence and dscp bits so I'm not sure which ports
> you need to add if they are not all ready in your ACL?!?  I would also
> try the header compression.  That takes the header from 40 bits to 2.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Wieling [mailto:eric@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:48 AM
> To: Voll, Scott
> Subject: RE: [nsp] QoS issues with LLQ, Fair Queue and Frame Relay
> 
> We are trying to do two G729 streams.  HOWEVER, I'm seeing high latency
> for packets that match voice-access-list even when there is NO voice
> traffic (just an ATA-186 registering to my SIP server).
> 
> On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 11:43, Voll, Scott wrote:
> > How many calls are you trying to make and what codec?  You are only
> > prioritizing 64k.  You need to add up how many calls and how much
> > bandwidth per call and make that your priority **** not just 64.  64
> > will take care of one G711 call. Or maybe 3 calls at like G729/ G723
> > etc. 
> > 
> > You might also look at "frame-relay ip tcp header-compression" or
> > "frame-relay ip rtp header-compression" to help get you some more
> > bandwidth.
> > 
> > Hope that helps
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- From: Eric Wieling [mailto:eric@xxxxxxxxxx]
> 
> > 
> > I'm having trouble with getting QoS working.  I looked at
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk698/technologies_configuration_e
> > xample09186a0080094af9.shtml and decided to go withLLQ rather than IP
> > RTP Priority because we will eventually want to prioritize traffic in
> > addition to RTP traffic.  What I'm seeing is that the RTP traffic is
> NOT
> > being prioritized over other traffic.  I'm also seeing what looks like
> > random problems with TCP connections (users are complaining about not
> > being able to connect to our mail server, etc.
> > 
> > We have a Frame Relay network in a hub and spoke configuration.  QoS
> was
> > configured at each of the offices.  
> > 
> > I've pasted part of our config in hopes that someone out there can see
> > what I might be doing wrong.  ANY help or pointers to additional
> > information would be helpful.
> > 
> > System image file is "flash:c2600-ik9o3s3-mz.122-15.T5.bin"
> > 
> > ip cef
> > 
> > class-map match-all voice-class-map
> >  match access-group name voice-access-list
> > 
> > policy-map traffic-policy-map
> >  class voice-class-map
> >   priority 64
> >  class class-default
> >   fair-queue
> > 
> > interface Serial0/1
> >  description Connected to BellSouth
> >  bandwidth 768
> >  no ip address
> >  encapsulation frame-relay
> >  no fair-queue
> >  frame-relay traffic-shaping
> >  frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> > 
> > interface Serial0/1.1 point-to-point
> >  description morrison
> >  bandwidth 384
> >  ip address 172.16.0.41 255.255.255.252
> >  frame-relay interface-dlci 201
> >   class traffic-map-class
> > 
> > ip access-list extended voice-access-list
> >  permit udp any any range 16384 37276
> >  permit udp any eq 5036 any
> >  permit udp any any eq 5036
> >  permit udp any eq 5060 any
> >  permit udp any any eq 5060
> > 
> > map-class frame-relay traffic-map-class
> >  frame-relay cir 384000
> >  frame-relay bc 3840
> >  frame-relay be 0
> >  frame-relay mincir 384000
> >  service-policy output traffic-policy-map
> >  frame-relay fragment 480
-- 
BTEL Consulting
850-484-4535 x2111 (Office)
504-595-3916 x2111 (Experimental)
877-552-0838 (Backup Phone)

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/