Thanks much to Andras and others! Andras, when you said you had all units
configured not to run at rate greater than 256k, and the quality is still OK
or good; I assumed you had both video and voice traffice over those PVCs,
such as NetMeeting application? Again, Thanks alot for all of the info!
Thomas N.
""Andras Bellak"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We are currently running a mix of polycom mp and fx units via h.323 on
> our WAN. We have set all the units to not run at any speed greater than
> 256k. The video quality is great on all of them, even those going into
> questionaable frame networks such as Mexico. Our latency from our
> headquarters in San Diego to the various video systems ranges from 40ms
> to 210ms. Our WAN is composed of IP-enabled Frame links (AT&T's way of
> saying MPLS VPN) with the occasionally frame pvc in place. If you are
> going to depend on the video quality being good, you should look into
> implementing some form of QOS on the network. Most people do this with
> voice having a higher rating through the WAN, but we've found that
> glitches are more easily recognized and complained about on the video
> side.
>
> We are also running voice over the same network, but not the the same
> degree. Our voice system is Lucent based, and simply ties into our LAN's
> in each office that is connected with Lucent PBX systems. The voice
> quality is decent over the links, at least good cell phone quality, and
> the latency is minimal. One thing to be concerned about with voice is
> it's high demands for bandwidth per call. The Lucent system uses 64K per
> connection (which really doesn't measure out quite that high). Using
> analog phones with FXS and FXO cards in cisco routers generates sound
> quality that is at least as good, and lower overhead. But it is more
> difficult to integrate into an existing homogenous network (if you have
> disparate pbx systems, take a look at the cisco method). I haven't
> worked with the cisco ip phone solutions on my network, but understand
> from colleagues that they work extremely well.
>
> On the video side, try to test a few different systems that meet your
> needs, even trying different systems from different manufacturers. There
> is often a noticable difference in video quality depending on the
> systems (ie - our polycom fx h.323 systems have far better video
> performance than our polycom mp units with h.323 - but the fx doesn't
> have built in isdn and cost quite a bit more).
>
> Have fun with this if you can - video and voice over ip are great ways
> to wow upper management teams and are fun to play with.
>
> Good luck
>
> Andras Bellak
> Director, WAN Engineering
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Whalen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
>
>
> Many people agree with the below, that 384k is the minimum for
> reasonable
> live video..
>
> Brian "Sonic" Whalen
> Success = Preparation + Opportunity
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
>
> > As Manager, Voice/Data systems at the law firm I worked at, we demo'd
> two
> > different Videoconferencing technologies. I don't remember the first
> > vendor, but the second we looked at was Polycom. For both, I had 3
> ISDN
> > lines installed (3 x 128 kbps = 384 kbps). Use that as a ballpark
> figure
> > for video - if you're going to use specialized videoconferencing
> equipment.
> >
> >
> > -- Leigh Anne
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of
> > > Thomas N.
> > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:35 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > My company is concerning about running voice/video over IP
> > > network. Our WAN
> > > is running on fractial T1, so bandwidth limitation is a big problem
> to
> us.
> > > What will be the mininum bandwidth requirement for voice and
> > > video traffic?
> > > 128k? Thanks!
> > >
> > > Thomas N.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19375&t=19351
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
