Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
• QoS Review
Site 1 R1 Site 2 R2
S0/0
192.168.100. S0/0
1 192.168.100.2
Internet
Fa0/1 S0/0
192.168.11.254
Fa0/1
192.168.10.254
File server
(FTP)
192.168.11.2
TRIXBOX IP-
PBX
192.168.0.10
192.168.11. X 192.168.10. X
Experimental Methodology
• Two experiments were conducted
-Without QoS
-With QoS
Experiment 1 (Without QoS)
• QoS Parameters is measured.
• The same experiment is conducted by reducing
the bandwidth, to create congestion and QoS
parameters are measured.
• First, calls are initiated, simultaneously the FTP
server is accessed.
Analysis of Experiment 1 Results
• The experiment is conducted with the link speed
of 1.5 Mbps.
• Delay was maintained at 60ms.
• Jitter and packet loss was negligible.
• The experiment was conducted with 0.75 Mbps.
• Resulted in packet loss and jitters.
Experiment 2(With QoS)
• The experiment was conducted by marking
voice packets and implementing queuing
techniques.
• Traffic were identified and grouped into a class
and QoS was applied to the traffic classes.
• PQ,WFQ,CBWFQ and LLQ were the queuing
techniques configured.
• Performance of each queuing technique was
observed.
Analysis of Experiment 2 Results.
• The PQ is configured on each router. Voice
packets are on high priority.
• PQ was configured by creating a priority list and
specifying the protocol (udp) and mapping it to
the access-list, which specify the udp traffic.
• The quality of voice was good, but affects FTP
application.
Experiment 2(With QoS)
• WFQ was configured on serial interfaces of both
routers.
• Thresholds were configured default, where high
bandwidth conversations were dropped.
• Jitters obtained did not affect the voice quality,
because delay was maintained 70 ms after 8th
minute.
• The packet loss was found of 3% for 3-4 mins.
• FTP was frozen for few mins.
Experiment 2(With QoS)
• CBWFQ is configured on both the routers.
• The is variation in jitters and packet loss which is
negligible.