AutoQoS for voice traffic settings?

Hi Everybody, 
I have enabled auto qos on switch and following are information
Voice is the most important traffic in network, must ensure voice traffic goes first
SW# show mls qos map dscp-output-q
   Dscp-outputq-threshold map:
     d1 :d2    0     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9
      0 :    04-03 04-03 04-03 04-03 04-03 04-03 04-03 04-03 04-01 04-02
      1 :    04-02 04-02 04-02 04-02 04-02 04-02 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03
      2 :    03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03
      3 :    02-03 02-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03 03-03
      4 :    01-03 01-03 01-03 01-03 01-03 01-03 01-03 01-03 02-03 02-03
      5 :    02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03
      6 :    02-03 02-03 02-03 02-03
SW# show mls qos queue-set
Queueset: 1
Queue     :       1       2       3       4
buffers   :      10      10      26      54
threshold1:     138     138      36      20
threshold2:     138     138      77      50
reserved  :      92      92     100      67
maximum   :     138     400     318     400
For the 
DSCP 46 : it's 01-03 (voice)
DSCP 0 : it's 04-03 (general traffic)
From my understanding 
- 01-03 means queue 1 and threshold3. (by default threshold3 is 100 and hidden)
- queue-set 1 is enabled by default on all interface and hidden
According to the above information, 
- Does the Auto Qos is design for voice goes first?
- Why the Q1 buffer and maximum are less then Q4? isn't suppose to set more buffer on Q1 for voice traffic? or I have to re-distribute the queue buffer and threshold, etc...
- or I just use priority-queue out, then those queue setting will be ignored?
Thanks in advance
Sam

udp ports 16384 to 32767 for rtp traffic
1720 tcp for control (h323 protocol)

Similar Messages

  • Putting QOS for voice traffic in switches.

    Hi All,
    does anybody know how to prioritize the voice traffic over data in the 2960 SW, in a scenario in which ethernet cable coming to ipphone & from IPphone to PC.

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    Yes, I do.
    laugh - I was temped to stop with the above, as it directly answers your question, but I assume you want to know how.
    In principle, you recognize the VoIP traffic as being different from data traffic and provide it "special" egress treatment.  Normally you would enable QoS, and for egress, enable PQ, direct VoIP bearer traffic to that queue.  You might also direct VoIP signalling traffic to a queue that insures it's not unduly delayed or dropped.  You might also set rate caps on ingress VoIP traffic.
    Recognition of VoIP traffic can be done in different ways.  Your phones might support L2 CoS or L3 ToS marking, your switch might "analyze" ingress traffic, your switch might trust a Cisco VoIP phone, your switch and VoIP phones might use a dedicated VLAN.  Basically, there's lots of variables dealing with ingress.
    Unfortunately, you've provided insufficient information for specific recommendations.
    PS:
    BTW, your 2960 might also support auto-QoS, which may, or may not, be all you need to enable.

  • Separate Physical LAN for Voice Traffic

    HI everyone,
    How common is it to set up an entirely separate switching and routing infrastructure to handle voice over IP traffic?  I'm curious if this would be necessary as opposed to just logically separating the traffic via a voice VLAN.  Any input would be much appreciated.

    Not very common at all, as I said I have only seen this at Trading companies (very typical to that market), but that is a small percentage of all deployments.  I have worked with pretty much every imaginable market and have not see it anywhere else.
    HTH, please rate all useful posts!
    Chris

  • Voice traffic

    Hello, I have been running 20Mb mpls circuit over which i have formed GRE tunnel. My circuit goes choke most of the times. So i am planning to configure QoS and assign 5mb for voice traffic(i.e. for VOIP phone communication) and rest BW for others traffic. What would be best solution, should i police voice traffic under voice class map or PQ would be good.
    Also how should i classify voice traffic for my voip phones. pls help.

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    BTW, 20 Mbps can push the practical performance capacity of a 2821.
    class-map match-any LLQ
    !match your VoIP bearer traffic here
    policy-map Shape20M
    class class-default
    shape average 17000000 !we're shaping 15% slower to allow for L2 overhead
    service-policy Sample
    policy-map Sample
    class LLQ
    priority percent 30
    class class-default
    bandwidth remaining percent 100
    fair-queue
    interface tunnel #
    ip tcp adjust-mss 1436
    ip mtu 1476
    service-policy output Shape20M
    tunnel path-mtu-discovery
    keepalive 1

  • QoS for voice tagged traffic

    I am trying to confirm my assumption that given voice traffic arriving at an AP or wireless bridge is already tagged with COS (and TOS) precedence, the wireless device will properly deal with it by default.
    It appears from the documentation, but isn't explicitly stated, that the only QoS configuration required is to classify and tag (COS) packets. If they are tagged already, no configuration is required.
    Is this correct?
    Also, are COS precedence values preserved across a wireless bridge link, or must they be re-tagged at the far end?

    Hi there,
    in "Configuring QoS" of the Aironet 1310 Configuration Guide
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5861/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00804ed713.html
    it reads:
    "Precedence of QoS Settings
    When you enable QoS, the access point/bridge queues packets based on the Layer 2 class of service value for each packet. The access point/bridge applies QoS policies in this order:
    1. Packets already classified—When the access point/bridge receives packets from a QoS-enabled switch or router that has already classified the packets with non-zero 802.1Q/P user_priority values, the access point/bridge uses that classification and does not apply other QoS policy rules to the packets. An existing classification takes precedence over all other policies on the access point/bridge.
    Note Even if you have not configured a QoS policy, the access point always honors tagged 802.1P packets that it receives over the radio interface."
    Hope this helps
    Martin

  • Priority queue for voice/audio traffic

    Hi,
    Still in limbo after multiple discussions with our vendors, TAC and in general other engineers, so starting a thread here.  In the process of rolling out enterprise audio, with the intent to prioritize and allocate 25% of link bandwidth for voice class.
    Our config snapshow is as follows -
    policy-map qos-wan-out
     class dscp-voice-lan
      set ip precedence 5
      priority percent 25
    I understand that
    -DURING congestion, this will ensure voice gets a maximum of 25% and is dequeued first due to the priority setting
    -And during NO congestion, the voice traffic will be dequeued before other traffic, but at the same time, can go over 25% as QoS kicks in only during congestion.
    I am seeing some contradictory results in that we are having high packet loss if we exceed 25% even when the link is less than 40% utilized. I doubt the above CE configurations are an issue. But, wanted to run this by this group.
    Alternate theory is that with the above configurations, our traffic is exiting fine - but the service provider who is using priority class queuing within their MPLS network may be capping the bandwidth at 25% at all times (with or without congestion).
    thanks

    Hi Bro
    Maybe the incoming voice packets into your FW isn't marked with ef. For this reason, you don't see anything at all. I hope the QOS isn't tied to a subinterface, as QOS is only supported on the main interface itself. What you're doing here is QoS Configuration based on DSCP. You could refer to this URL for troubleshooting purposes.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_example09186a008080dfa7.shtml#tab4
    Did you marked on the Cisco Catalyst switchports, which ports are ef?

  • ITunes-LAME settings ideal for voice.

    Using iTunes-LAME Encoder v2.0.9 (34) & LAME v3.97
    I am having trouble with some past suggested encoding options for voice or audiobooks. Of the settings below, only -b 48 produced an encoding. I expected adding -m m to the end of that would get me a mono of the same but got a spinning ball instead. The others below all got stuck on "gathering info" with a spinning rainbow. I'm wondering if the latest lame has a change in the command line for encoding options?
    I am looking to end up with a small file size for Audiobooks (ie 48 kbps), and yet resolve the voice "s" harsh digital sound.
    Using Audio Hijack Pro off a CD player set to CBR - 48 kbps - mono, I got a good sounding file much better on the "s" than iTunes (built in import) set to the same settings. Thus I was trying to see if iTunes-LAME could do as did AHJPro.
    Looking for speed as well. The -b 48 sounded ok on the "S" but lost some of the higher frequency thus a little muted sounding. Also important not to make this a long encoding process as there are many discs to do. I realize the list below has a few different bit rates and CBR VBR and ABR. Some I do not understand the setting as they did not appear on the usage guide.
    Suggestion desired.
    Anyone know a most current list of encoding settings (usage) that will work?
    So far tried:
    --preset 22 --noshort --scale 1.05 -q0 -mm --resample 16 --lowpass 7.0
    -b 32 --resample 22050 --lowpass 8000
    --alt-preset 64 -mm -b32
    --abr 64 -mm -b32
    -b 56 -m m
    --preset voice
    -b 48
    Message was edited by: Harmz
    Message was edited by: Harmz

    Using a different iTunes library I was able to use the settings posted in my last message without a spinning ball. I think iTunes-LAME was just not finding the source. (I tried to edit the above for a 3rd time but forum wouldn't allow.)
    Thus the problem is not in the settings, and I was able to compare the results.
    Though I'm still interested in a good discussion of settings both for voice and music.
    I cannot explain the settings of the first two listed above.
    Message was edited by: Harmz

  • Voice traffic in a LAN

    hi all!
    can i priority voice traffic in a campus LAN ? we have 2950 EI switch on the access an 3550 on the core layer with vlans...i search a configuration example
    many thanks for the answers!

    Yes you can. If you're running IOS 12.1(12c)EA1 or above on your switches, the easiest way to configure QoS is with the "autoqos" command. Please see the following link for details.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk759/tk879/technologies_white_paper0900aecd800a8561.shtml
    Hope this helps. If so, please rate the post.
    Brandon

  • Implemention QOS for Voice

    Hi,
    We have a 2Mbps LL 1:4
    we are using CSICO ATA for Voice.
    we are using cisco 2620 router .
    Here are my questions.
    1.Kindly check My config and say whether this QOS config will work for prioritising the Voice.
    class-map match-all VOIP-RTP
    match ip dscp ef
    policy-map VOICE-QOS
    class VOIP-RTP
    priority 1024
    interface Serial0/0
    description ### STPI-GATEWAY-VASHI ###
    bandwidth 2048
    ip address 213.11.12.115 255.255.255.252
    ip access-group 103 in
    ip access-group 103 out
    service-policy output VOICE-QOS
    shutdown
    2.How can i filter the HTTP,TELNET,SSH,RDP,FTP traffic.
    Kindly help me.
    Thanks
    Ranga

    A more scalable config (that you dont have to redo too much) might include bandwidth guarantees for other classes of traffic as well...
    Also, I like to go with the qos design guide recommendation and set aside a queue for voice signalling... like the following...
    i also dont "match ip dscp ef" but rather just look for rtp audio... dont always have a marking switch/phone system behind your router... sometimes its a whitebox phone system sending rtp packets, and a dumb switch... I also go with a nested policy, which shapes all to the speed of the link, then decides which traffic will follow the rules of the child policy to leave the single queue ;)
    class-map match-any manage
    match protocol dhcp
    match protocol dns
    match protocol kerberos
    match protocol ldap
    match protocol snmp
    match protocol syslog
    class-map match-any bulk
    match protocol exchange
    match protocol ftp
    match protocol pop3
    match protocol smtp
    class-map match-any voicesignal
    match protocol h323
    match protocol rtcp
    class-map match-any transactional
    match protocol citrix
    match protocol pcanywhere
    match protocol secure-telnet
    match protocol sqlnet
    match protocol sqlserver
    match protocol ssh
    match protocol telnet
    match protocol tsrvrdp
    class-map match-any video
    match protocol rtp video
    match protocol cuseeme
    match protocol netshow
    match protocol rtsp
    match protocol streamwork
    match protocol vdolive
    class-map match-any voicebearer
    match protocol rtp audio
    policy-map Pol-S0/0/0.1-child
    class voicebearer
    set dscp ef
    priority percent 25
    class transactional
    bandwidth percent 25
    class voicesignal
    bandwidth percent 5
    class manage
    bandwidth percent 5
    policy-map Pol-S0/0/0.1-parent
    class class-default
    shape average 1444000
    service-policy Pol-0/0/0.1-child
    int s0/0/0.1
    service-policy output Pol-S0/0/0.1-parent
    (yes not all my classes are used in my policy; they are for future use... nice to have them in there now though, as they can always be allocated some bandwidth later on, at the expense of what is carved out now...)
    Tschuss,
    Joe

  • VoFR PVC for data and PVC for voice with FRTS

    Dear friends, It is my first experience configuring VoFR. My access rate is 128 Kbps and the CIR is 64 Kbps. I configured the router following some cisco examples using "vofr cisco" and FRTS into my "map-class" for voice. You can see my config in the attach file.
    It works fine, the quality voice is good (2 calls)when the link is congested up to 100% through bi-directional ftp download.
    However, I cannot get a speed upper to 64 Kbps. I understand that it is as FRTS works and it is necesary to QoS for voice. But I`m paying to my service provider a price for 128/64 and I never won`t get a speed greater than 64 Kbps.
    How can I solve this problem without increase my CIR?. It has a additional cost.
    I`m reading that some solution could be create two PVCs: one for voice and one for data. How should I configure them to get a burst traffic for data upper to 64 Kbps without affect my quality of voice?
    Thank you for your suggestions.
    Edwin.

    The following document has some explaination on the queueing on frame relay interfaces. This might help you understand how to configure different pvcs for voice and data and utilise the given cir fully.
    Understanding Queueing on Frame Relay Router Interfaces
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk544/technologies_tech_note09186a00800a4754.shtml
    VoIP over Frame Relay with Quality of Service (Fragmentation, Traffic Shaping, LLQ / IP RTP Priority)
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk698/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094af9.shtml

  • HT3597 commands for voice control

    Is there a list of commands for voice control?

    Yea, I have a friend who has noticed this issue on his Z10.
    I've tested on my Z30, and the voice feedback is loud and clear. We'll have to figure out the differenced in the devices or OS release, or settings.
    What is your Operating System loaded to your device? Look at Options >  From the main screen, swipe down from the top black bezel to Settings > About... what is the OS Version listed there?
    1. If any post helps you please click the below the post(s) that helped you.
    2. Please resolve your thread by marking the post "Solution?" which solved it for you!
    3. Install free BlackBerry Protect today for backups of contacts and data.
    4. Guide to Unlocking your BlackBerry & Unlock Codes
    Join our BBM Channels (Beta)
    BlackBerry Support Forums Channel
    PIN: C0001B7B4   Display/Scan Bar Code
    Knowledge Base Updates
    PIN: C0005A9AA   Display/Scan Bar Code

  • "frags delayed" counter incrementing for Voice PVC

    Hi,
    We are using VoFR between two Cisco 2610 using FXO\FXS Cards. It is a point-point link with two PVCs, one for Voice and one for Data.
    I have implemented Traffic-Shaping and FRF. However when i do a "show frame pvc " command, i can see "frags delayed"counter incrementing for the Voice PVC, indiciating delay in sending packets and thus compromising Voice Quality.
    1. Is it normal to have this counter increasing ? What is the acceptable percentage i.e "frags delayed \ total frags" ?
    2. Is there anything i can do ? Would PVC Priority Queuing help ?
    I need to be sure if PVC Priority is the solution, as we would have to do a Flash Upgrade to install the new software with this feature.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    show frame pvc 103
    PVC Statistics for interface Serial0/0 (Frame Relay DTE)
    DLCI = 103, DLCI USAGE = LOCAL, PVC STATUS = ACTIVE, INTERFACE = Serial0/0.3
    input pkts 373951 output pkts 374604 in bytes 11542352
    out bytes 12245392 dropped pkts 0 in FECN pkts 0
    in BECN pkts 0 out FECN pkts 0 out BECN pkts 0
    in DE pkts 0 out DE pkts 0
    out bcast pkts 5474 out bcast bytes 1571038
    pvc create time 11w3d, last time pvc status changed 04:06:31
    Service type VoFR-cisco
    Voice Queueing Stats: 0/100/0 (size/max/dropped)
    Current fair queue configuration:
    Discard Dynamic Reserved
    threshold queue count queue count
    64 16 2
    Output queue size 0/max total 600/drops 0
    configured voice bandwidth 30000, used voice bandwidth 0
    fragment type VoFR-cisco fragment size 320
    cir 32000 bc 320 be 0 limit 40 interval 10
    mincir 32000 byte increment 40 BECN response no
    frags 374604 bytes 12261814 frags delayed 6501 bytes delayed 1609296
    shaping inactive
    traffic shaping drops 0
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The following links explains the delay in voice traffic and gow to do traffic policing
    VoIP over Frame Relay with QoS (Fragmentation, Traffic Shaping, LLQ / IP RTP Priority)
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voice-qos/voip-ov-fr-qos.html#15
    Troubleshooting Output Drops with Priority Queueing
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/priorityqueuedrops.html
    Understanding Delay in Packet Voice Networks
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voip/delay-details.html
    Voice QoS: ToS-CoS Mapping Via LLQ
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voice-qos/tos-cos.html
    Frame Relay Traffic Shaping for VoIP and VoFR
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voip/fr_traffic.html

  • I don't receive notifications for voice message on my iphone5 any help?

    I don't receive notifications for voice message on my iphone5 any help?

    have you checked what is set up in settings, notifications, phone?

  • I made erase for all my settings and contents from 8 hours and still now in recovery state ?what shall i do?, i made erase for all my settings and contents from 8 hours and still now in recovery state ?what shall i do?

    i made erase for all my settings and contents from 8 hours and still now in recovery state ?what shall i do?, i made erase for all my settings and contents from 8 hours and still now in recovery state ?what shall i do?

    we have almost similar problem. i also did restored my iphone5. and it keeps restoring after it finishes. what i did was, i disconnected the phone from iTunes and pressed the home & power button, hold it till the apple logo appears. but i will warn you. after i did this, my phone did worked after, but now im having problem with siri and voice command. both keeps on making calls, playing music even the phone is just inside my bag or not using it. when i use the phone, it keep on going home, enabling siri, going to music wihtout touching anything. such a pain in the neck

  • Voice Traffic over MPLS-enabled OSPF running backbone links

    Hi All;
    We have running frame-mode MPLS backbone and OPSF as well. Voice as real-time traffic is passing through our backbone links and marked with precedence 5 as an ordinary behaviour.
    What i face is that i can not balance the voice traffic between the uplinks of the LER routers through LSR routers. Let me summarise like this.
    I have a PE that has 4xE1 connection as uplinks terminated at two different LSRs. However, when i look at the voice traffic distribution from PE to Ps,the general attribute is voice traffic is choosing only one E1 and uses it. And other links are not used so much by voice traffic. And this causes poor quality of voice because, it exceeds the amount of the reserved bandtwidth that is defined via LLQ under the backbone links. I have also re-defined the priorty class bantwidth and raised it as much as it can be defined, but now, the business in contract traffic is under danger. :)
    As OSPF does not support unequal load-balancing and also "load-sharing per-packet" command sucks the voice traffic, there is nothing to balance the voice traffic on the backbone links.
    By the way, i have defined MPLS/TE tunnels that are PE-PE tunnels, according to my observations of voice traffic goes to where. I tried to balance the output traffic somehow but the situation is still the same. Sometimes, traffic chooses one tunnel and goes over there. In fact this problem bears with CEF itself but this is another case.
    So any suggestion how i can come over this obstacle. Thanks in advance.
    Regards,
    Baris.

    Disclaimer
    The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
    Liability Disclaimer
    In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
    Posting
    BTW, 20 Mbps can push the practical performance capacity of a 2821.
    class-map match-any LLQ
    !match your VoIP bearer traffic here
    policy-map Shape20M
    class class-default
    shape average 17000000 !we're shaping 15% slower to allow for L2 overhead
    service-policy Sample
    policy-map Sample
    class LLQ
    priority percent 30
    class class-default
    bandwidth remaining percent 100
    fair-queue
    interface tunnel #
    ip tcp adjust-mss 1436
    ip mtu 1476
    service-policy output Shape20M
    tunnel path-mtu-discovery
    keepalive 1

Maybe you are looking for