Software inventory application

A similar consideration must be given to the sum of all traffic assigned for all priority classes. It is important to remember the goal of convergence: to allow voice, video, and data to coexist transparently on a single network. If real-time applications dominate a network, as in the case of a dominantly provisioned LLQ (in which the priority classes have the lion's share of the bandwidth), data applications might fluctuate significantly in their network response times when voice/videoconference calls are made. This destroys the transparency of the converged network. User feedback consistently has reflected that most users prefer consistent (even if moderately slower) application response times over varying response times (as would occur if LLQs dominated WAN links). software inventory application testing has revealed a conservative rule of thumb for priority class provisioning, which is to limit the sum of all priority class traffic to no more than 33 percent of the WAN link's capacity. This 33 percent LLQ rule has been deployed widely and successfully

Because of the policing function within LLQ, it is important to accurately provision bandwidth required for voice calls. LLQ is a Layer 3 queuing mechanism and, as such, accounts for only Layer 3 packet bandwidth. (It does not take Layer 2 headers into account.) Furthermore, the Layer 3 bandwidth required by a voice call is determined by a number of factors. These factors include the codec used, the sampling size, and the compression techniques, such as cRTP (also known as RTP header compression). ABC has provided a voice bandwidth calculator to determine the correct bandwidth to provision in LLQ for voice calls