[cisco-voip] Redundancy -- Quality of Voice -- QoS vs RSVP

[Scott Voll]

So this is my limited understanding of RSVP and maybe for what I'm planning
now, it's not the best way to do it.

RSVP is really for times of different link speeds or not Hub and spoke.  eg.
 Hub -- 10mb -- remote site 1 -- T1 -- remote site 2.  RSVP would allow CAC
for the users at Remote site 2 to have correct CAC while still providing CAC
for Remote Site 1.

So where my my original thought came from was a hub ======= remote site.
 One line would be our main 200 mb connection and the other would be a MPLS
backup 5mb link.  I believe this would also be a good choice to use RSVP.

But we are now looking at the secondary link as possibly a backup internet
connection using getvpn to link back in.  Now since it's the internet......
maybe RSVP goes out the window...... and so does any QoS.

If I'm misunderstanding.... can someone edumacate me?  a good schooling will
help me now, before I get to far down a dead end network ;-)

Scott

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Wellnitz, Erick A. <
erick.wellnitz at kattenlaw.com> wrote:

>  That’s kind of what I would like to know.  Is it worth the trouble of
> configuring RSVP?   Advantages?  Disadvantages?****
>
> ** **
>
> What would be the use case for implementing it?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> In our situation, calls must complete and be of good quality.   I need to
> be able to steer management (which already has determined they want RSVP) to
> the correct solution for our needs.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jason Aarons (AM) [mailto:jason.aarons at dimensiondata.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2011 10:36 AM
> *To:* Wellnitz, Erick A.; Scott Voll; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* RE: [cisco-voip] Redundancy -- Quality of Voice -- QoS vs RSVP*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> So if the bandwidth isn’t available to be reserved will you display a out
> of bandwidth message on phone and have them wait? Or AAR?  Just trying to
> understand what happens without it and how adding it will make things
> better.  Will the MKQ score be better for existing calls, not allowing new
> calls that overwhelm the link?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Wellnitz, Erick A.
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2011 11:03 AM
> *To:* Scott Voll; cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Redundancy -- Quality of Voice -- QoS vs RSVP*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Great question.  We have a similar topology to Scott’s  and once we have
> all of our offices converted to Cisco VoIP we will be looking at RSVP to
> maintain quality.  We attempted it before on 6.1.2 but we never got it
> working.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
> cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] *On Behalf Of *Scott Voll
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2011 9:43 AM
> *To:* cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* [cisco-voip] Redundancy -- Quality of Voice -- QoS vs RSVP****
>
> ** **
>
> OK, so I'm feeling a little behind the ball.  I've always had a hub and
> spoke network, but now we are looking at redundant networks to keep up time
> to the 5 9's or better.****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm looking at using our internet connections via VPN to backup your
> current MANs.****
>
> ** **
>
> eg.  remote site -- MAN -- Hub****
>
>         | ---- Internet VPN ----|****
>
> ** **
>
> beyond the Routing / VPN it sounds like I should be using RSVP rather than
> CAC and QoS.  Has anyone setup RSVP?  I'm currently on CM 7.1 but If I'm
> thinking correctly, I need 8.5 or 8.6 to get RSVP working with CM.****
>
> ** **
>
> What other things am I forgetting?****
>
> ** **
>
> What have others found with RSVP?  Good, bad, or other.****
>
> ** **
>
> TIA****
>
> ** **
>
> Scott****
>
>
>
> itevomcid ****
>
> ===========================================================****
>
> CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue****
>
> Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used****
>
> by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.****
>
> ===========================================================****
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:****
>
> This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive****
>
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is****
>
> proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you****
>
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or ****
>
> distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify****
>
> the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original ****
>
> message without making any copies.****
>
> ===========================================================****
>
> NOTIFICATION:  Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has****
>
> elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).****
>
> ===========================================================****
>
>   ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20110624/ffa21d89/attachment.html>