This kind of setup has puzzled me also in the past. My conclusion was that you need to have IP enabled on the interface to allow the policy to be processed. As your ATM interface itself has no ip adress, ip processing will be disabled on it which I assume is why the policy map does work as expected.
The solution would be to assign the policy to the subinterfaces instead.
In accordance with the above, you would need to apply the policy to the subinterface.
As my collegue clearly depicts, you should be able to combine the two pvc's into one, that would also be the scenario where the policy comes in action. When you are sending voice over a dedicated pvc there is little need to prioritize the flow. This equals the configuration where you have a dedicated leased line for voice.
This scenario requires two PVCs because the voice & data traffic are terminated on two differents broadband aggregator (not Cisco). The engineering unit, which provided this kind of solution, considers this topology as mandatory so I guess that this policy-map will not be applicable.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...