[cisco-voip] Auto-QoS ?

[Jonathan Charles]

Actually, Cisco flipped it the other way...

It used to be EF for payload and AF31 for control... now they are
saying CCM encodes CS3 to control traffic...

So, as the auto-qos does, do a match-any on CS3 and AF31...



Jonathan

On 6/6/07, Linsemier, Matthew <MLinsemier at apcapital.com> wrote:
> I haven't read the SRND in a while, but lately in dealing with TAC, they
> have always recommended changing the COS 3 COS-to-DSCP mappings to DSCP
> 26 rather than the default DSCP 24.  I remember doing this in the past.
> I thought CS3 was the old method and AF31 was the new one.  Guess it's
> time to go check out the SRND.
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Carter, Bill
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: Jonathan Charles; Paul Choi
> Cc: cbomba at s4nets.com; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Auto-QoS ?
>
> AutoQoS on the switches still maps COS 3 to DSCP AF31(26), when current
> SRND and CM installations set call control to DSCP CS3(24).  I run
> autoqos on the switches then adjust the map.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan
> Charles
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:10 PM
> To: Paul Choi
> Cc: cbomba at s4nets.com; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Auto-QoS ?
>
> I would agree on the Router-side.. but for the switches, it is far more
> likely to have positive results than the manual method...
> especially without years of experience configuring your queues...
>
> To be honest, the auto-qos dumps config into the switch that is, A:
> Cisco TAC supported, B: Likely to work great and C: easy.
>
> Why wouldn't you use it? Unless you have a lot of SNA traffic or
> something...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 6/5/07, Paul Choi <asobihoudai at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Auto-QoS, better known as "QoS for idiots" (like
> > myself) is a cookie cutter approach to your network. I think it's
> > better not to use if you have the knowhow to implement QoS yourself.
> >
> > --- "Christopher M. Bomba" <cbomba at s4nets.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I have implemented QoS on multiple voice networks from 6500s to
> > > 2950s.  I have done it always manually.  The network I am working on
>
> > > now is insisting on Auto-QoS.  I haven't done it before but only
> > > heard horror stories from it.
> > >
> > > What are you thoughts on this?  This is a very large network that is
>
> > > going to have multiple clusters and thousands of devices connected
> > > to the IPT network.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cisco-voip mailing list
> > > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ______________
> > Be a PS3 game guru.
> > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
> Games.
> > http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
> This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
> be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended
> solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you
> are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying
> or distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither
> this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor
> anything else in this message is intended to constitute an
> electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
> contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
> communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete
> this communication from your computer. Thank you.
>