A comparative analysis of Cisco Performance Routing (PfR) and other performance enhancing techniques - Cisco QoS and Path Control

University essay from Högskolan i Halmstad/Sektionen för Informationsvetenskap, Data– och Elektroteknik (IDE)

Abstract: Eleven years ago Cisco introduced three types of applications on the same converged network and named it AVVID (Architecture for Voice, Video and Integrated Data). In spite of the initial interest and hype surrounding AVVID, the feature was and still is unable to confront problems such as: data priority, load balancing and network congestion. The work in this report addressed these issues within the network. Different Cisco Internetwork Operating System (IOS) methods: routing protocols, Cisco IOS QoS (including LLQ, LFI and Header Compression), Path Control and Cisco Performance Routing (PfR) were all tested to see which feature would work best at enhancing network performance. A practical network was created in which these features were carefully implemented one after another. In every step, the results were observed and recorded and if necessary repeated in order to check their validity. The results for RTT (Round Trip Time) and MOS (Mean Opinion Score) showed that in comparison to Path Control and Cisco IOS QoS (Quality of Service) mechanisms, Cisco PfR was able to generate routes on the fly during times of network congestion. This cannot be achieved with the use of Cisco QoS and Path Control which makes Cisco Performance Routing a far more superior feature. Although the focus of the work was VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) data, it is possible to construct a network with any application as Cisco PfR is able to reroute data. Cisco PfR is an easily accessible IOS feature which, once implemented, requires very little updating and maintenance.

  AT THIS PAGE YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE WHOLE ESSAY. (follow the link to the next page)