Different QoS markings for signalling - Tandberg/Cisco video vs Avaya phones?

[jkeeffe]

I'm configuring up a QoS environment following the new Medianet 4.0 SRND.  We're using all Tandberg/Cisco video conferenice endpoints and Avaya IP phones.

Cisco and Avaya recommend marking their signalling packets differently, such as:

Cisco recommendation = mark signalling as CS3

Avaya recommendation = mark signalling as EF and put in the same priority queue as voice.

Cisco also recommends marking interactive-video EF and put it in the same priority as voice.

As far as the signalling, I really don't want to have two different markings, CS3 for video and EF for voice, so my question is:

Should I follow Cisco's recommendation and mark ALL signalling - Tandberg and Avaya - as CS3, or follow Avaya's recommendation and mark ALL signalling as EF.

The answer makes a big difference on how I am to proceed.

[Aaron Harrison · Accepted solution]

However if I were deploying this on a Cisco LAN I'd go with Cisco's recommendations. Signalling traffic is typically pretty low bandwidth and TCP based, so it will work OK in most circumstances and a little protection in a CS3 class is fine.

A general guideline on QoS is to not mix TCP and UDP in a class, which (presuming Avaya sig is TCP based) you would be doing if you lump it all in EF.

It's up to you really... either way the traffic will be protected.

Aaron

Please rate helpful posts..

[jkeeffe]

I've decided to not mix the UDP and TCP and will therefore mark signalling CS3.