On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote:
> > QoS isn't necessarily about throwing packets away. It is more like > making voice packets 'go to the head of the line'. Of course, if you > have saturation, some packets will get dropped, but at least the voice > packets won't get dropped since they were prioritized higher. Thats what I meant too... To qualify further on where it needs to be deployed, its required on whatever the slowest link in the typical path to "the Internet". What I mean is that if you download your email you will utilise the whole bandwidth of the slowest link in the chain, this may be a dialup modem but more likely in the office to be your T1, you dont want this full utilisation of the link (which will occur in small bursts of a few seconds, dont forget with voice we are interested in per second traffic volumes not 5 minute averages!) to affect the jitter you need to implement priorities at this point. Steve > > Ray Burkholder > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: February 10, 2003 14:05 > > To: Charles Youse > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: VoIP QOS best practices > > > > > > > > > That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense - is it that > > QoS doesn't work as advertised? > > > > That's generally true as well. But why would you need it? What's the > > advantage to be gained in using QoS to throw away packets, when the > > packets don't need to be thrown away? > > > > > As someone who is looking to deploy VoIP in the near > > future this is of particular interest. > > > > Go ahead and deploy it. It's easy and works well. It > > certainly doesn't > > need anything like QoS to make it work. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > >