[cisco-voip] PER CALL BANDWIDTH CONSUMPTION OVER ETHERNET+802.1Q

[Anthony Holloway]

I read somewhere that a phone could generate up to 2.5x call traffic with
its BIB.  Multiplying by 3x would still be acceptable, I would think.

The 8000 is a burst threshold over the policed rate.  It's always been 8000
in my experience, but probably only because no one knows enough to adjust
it  You cannot have an average and a max rate with voice.  It's constant
(excluding VAD).  Video on the other hand is variable.

If you are studying for your CCIE, I can share with you that Cisco has
publicly stated they have some percentage of forgiveness.  I.e., If they
say 3 g711ulaw calls worth of bandwidth, and I enter 90*3=270, but you
enter 93*3=279 (or even round up to 280), we would both get the points.
What the percentage is, I don't recall.  I want to say it was like 10%.  So
for every 100kbps, you can be plus or minus 10kbps.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:00 PM abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anthony,
>
> yes makes sense. but for the sake of argu. a single phone with even with
> BIB how many max g711 streams it can get to. 3? if so, for a safe figure
> can multiply by 3.
> moreover, I dont really understand this statement ​police 90500 8000 exc
> drop - as per docs, the actual transmission is 8k but on the avg. the max
> is 90k ( plz correct if wrong)
>
> On 15 April 2015 at 18:10, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> After reading the Medianet document, I'm certain they are just giving you
>> an example, not a definitive answer nor the best practice.  While 128kbps
>> does police the port to a single g711ulaw call, it also allows for a little
>> wiggle room, which I like.  If you are looking for the absolute minimum
>> bandwidth needed for a g711ulaw call, you could go lower than 128kbps, but
>> you wouldn't gain anything.  Don't forget that the BIB of the phone could
>> cause more than a single call's worth of RTP to ingress the switch port, in
>> which case your 128kbps would not be enough and you would have issues with
>> things such as network recording or silent monitoring.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:19 AM abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> medianet is
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/QoS_SRND_40/QoSCampus_40.html
>>>
>>> Vik's post
>>>
>>> http://www.collabcert.com/blog/qos/how-much-bandwidth-does-1-call-consume/
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 April 2015 at 13:44, Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you link us to the sources in question? I personally need a little
>>>> more context to go with your question.
>>>>
>>>> In general, policing a single g711ulaw call is around 93kbps, and
>>>> rounding it to 100kbps still achieves the goal of policing a single call.
>>>> And yes, a class based policer would police media and signaling separately.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I saw something on medianet at last year Cisco Live, but other
>>>> than that, I'm clueless about medianet. I can't say if and how things
>>>> changed once medianet came in to the picture. I'm sure Vik wasn't
>>>> considering that either, based on the fact that he teaches CCIE Collab boot
>>>> camps, and medianet is not a part of the blueprint.
>>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM abbas Wali <abbaseo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Vik Malhi posted that for a successful g711 call
>>>>>
>>>>> HQSW(config-pmap-c)#police 90500 8000 exc drop ! 0 packet loss
>>>>>
>>>>> now, as per Ciso medianet 4
>>>>>
>>>>> The VoIP and signaling traffic from the VVLAN can be policed to drop at 128 kbps and 32 kbps, respectively (as any excessive traffic matching this criteria would be indicative of network abuse)
>>>>>
>>>>> Question is 128 kbps supports 1 single voice stream of g711 OR if you go with Vik, you need to multiply 90500 with the number of calls you need on that port. I will assume that the sig is classified differently and handled by diff policer on that port.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> many thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Abbas Wali*
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>>>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Abbas Wali*
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Abbas Wali*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150415/767fcd92/attachment.html>