cathchar
asked on
VOIP QOS Cisco 2800 and 1800s - Metro-Ethernet
We have recently added some new Avaya phone systems to our network and are utilizing VOIP to connect our remote sites to our main site. I have worked with the phone vendor in configuring the QOS in the routers to support this, but I am not sure I like the way it is configured.
We have 9 remote sites connecting to our main site via Metro Ethernet. Each site has varying CIR from the carrier. Only 3 of our remote sites have VOIP phones currently, and in the future we will be adding additional sites.
We have 1 policy-map that is applied to the physical interface where all the metro-E subinterfaces are.
I found a link on Cisco that discussed creating a hierarchical policy :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a0080114326.shtml
It showed the following example which looks like it might be a better and more flexible way to do this :
policy-map child
class voice
priority 512
policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 2000000
service-policy child
interface ethernet0/0.1
service-policy parent
I like this because I can create a policy-map for each site, and apply them directly to the subinterfaces, rather than the entire physical interface.
Any opinions on this? Would the hierarchical policy method do what I want? (shape the link to carriers CIR and prioritize voice traffic up to 512kbps)
The code below is an example of what we are currently using. It is modified from the actual config to be posted here.
We have 9 remote sites connecting to our main site via Metro Ethernet. Each site has varying CIR from the carrier. Only 3 of our remote sites have VOIP phones currently, and in the future we will be adding additional sites.
We have 1 policy-map that is applied to the physical interface where all the metro-E subinterfaces are.
I found a link on Cisco that discussed creating a hierarchical policy :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a0080114326.shtml
It showed the following example which looks like it might be a better and more flexible way to do this :
policy-map child
class voice
priority 512
policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 2000000
service-policy child
interface ethernet0/0.1
service-policy parent
I like this because I can create a policy-map for each site, and apply them directly to the subinterfaces, rather than the entire physical interface.
Any opinions on this? Would the hierarchical policy method do what I want? (shape the link to carriers CIR and prioritize voice traffic up to 512kbps)
The code below is an example of what we are currently using. It is modified from the actual config to be posted here.
class-map match-any Site-B
match access-group 100
class-map match-any Site-C
match access-group 101
class-map match-any Site-D
match access-group 102
class-map match-any VOICE
match ip dscp ef
policy-map VOIP
class VOICE
priority 512
class Site-B
shape average 2850000 28500
class Site-C
shape average 1900000 19000
class Site-D
shape average 1900000 19000
class class-default
fair-queue
random-detect dscp-based
interface GigabitEthernet0/0
description To Metro-E
no ip address
service-policy output VOIP
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/0.1
description WAN interface to Site-B
ip address 10.1.1.x 255.255.255.252
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/0.2
description WAN interface to Site-C
ip address 10.1.1.x 255.255.255.252
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/0.3
description WAN interface to Site-D
ip address 10.1.1.x 255.255.255.252
NetworkDiagram1.jpg
I see you are grabbing EF marked traffig (hopefully RTP) and putting it in your priority queue, what I don't see is any signalling traffig getting handled by this policy. Typically signalling is marked as AF31.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER