1>说“它在10GB上，很好”
2>使用单独的网络（端口组和VLAN）专门针对具有1GB上行链路的VSS上的语音
3>使用单独的网络（端口组和VLAN）专门针对固定在端口组的1GB上行链路上的VDS上的语音
4>使用单独的网络（端口组和VLAN）专门针对具有10GB上行链路的VDS上的语音
5>使用单独的网络（端口组和VLAN）专门针对VDS上的语音，并使用IP优先级（差异化服务代码[DSCP]）AUDIO PRIPITY优先考虑语音VLAN的TOR Switch上具有10GB上行链路和流量优先级。
有想法社区吗？
最好的答案Bbbburns
@DaemonBehr<\/a>
\n
\nWhy IP Communicator instead of Cisco Jabber? I understand that the requirements for one or the other aren't always directly in your control, but if you have the option to do Cisco Jabber you can use the VXME Plugin:
\nhttp:\/\/www.cisco.com\/c\/en\/us\/products\/collateral\/collaboration-endpoints\/virtualization-experience-media-engine\/datasheet-c78-734102.html
\n
\nThis plugin allows the media to be streamed directly between the thin clients, thus you can keep all of your RTP audio traffic out of the data center and directly between endpoints. Your QoS marking and classification is then done at the switches near the endpoints and you avoid hairpinning RTP audio back and forth to the data center. The caveat here is this won't work on a zero client.
\n
\nIf you remove the RTP traffic from the VM then you no longer have to look at giving special QoS to all traffic from this VM. If you have no choice but to use IP Communicator I still don't like the extra complexity that a dedicated network adapter for voice enabled VMs would require. Having two network adapters in the same VM (one dedicated for voice) could lead to problems with one way audio if the IP Communicator doesn't handle it properly.
\n
\nThe ideal scenario removes the RTP from the datacenter, or remarks and reclassifies the voice traffic coming out of the data center where it's feasible to do so.
\n
\nThat's a long way of saying \"Option 1 - It's on 10GB, it's fine.\" With a note to try to avoid the scenario in the first place, or to try marking the traffic where you can.
\n
\n
\nJason Burns | CCIE Voice #20707 | Solutions & Performance Engineer | jason.burns@nutanix.com | @bbbburns<\/a>","className":"post__content__best_answer"}">
查看原件
\n
\nWhy IP Communicator instead of Cisco Jabber? I understand that the requirements for one or the other aren't always directly in your control, but if you have the option to do Cisco Jabber you can use the VXME Plugin:
\nhttp:\/\/www.cisco.com\/c\/en\/us\/products\/collateral\/collaboration-endpoints\/virtualization-experience-media-engine\/datasheet-c78-734102.html
\n
\nThis plugin allows the media to be streamed directly between the thin clients, thus you can keep all of your RTP audio traffic out of the data center and directly between endpoints. Your QoS marking and classification is then done at the switches near the endpoints and you avoid hairpinning RTP audio back and forth to the data center. The caveat here is this won't work on a zero client.
\n
\nIf you remove the RTP traffic from the VM then you no longer have to look at giving special QoS to all traffic from this VM. If you have no choice but to use IP Communicator I still don't like the extra complexity that a dedicated network adapter for voice enabled VMs would require. Having two network adapters in the same VM (one dedicated for voice) could lead to problems with one way audio if the IP Communicator doesn't handle it properly.
\n
\nThe ideal scenario removes the RTP from the datacenter, or remarks and reclassifies the voice traffic coming out of the data center where it's feasible to do so.
\n
\nThat's a long way of saying \"Option 1 - It's on 10GB, it's fine.\" With a note to try to avoid the scenario in the first place, or to try marking the traffic where you can.
\n
\n
\nJason Burns | CCIE Voice #20707 | Solutions & Performance Engineer | jason.burns@nutanix.com | @bbbburns<\/a>","className":"post__content__best_answer"}">
