Frank,
It gets better (which is sad) in the case of Charter if a customer
ordered voice and data they were given a normal Moto SB for Internet
data and a separate Arris eMTA (with no CPEs allowed other than the TA
and the Ethernet port disabled) for voice. The channels they were using
for voice even terminated on a different CMTS altogether.
On 3/2/2011 11:26 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. I can't imagine an MSO using separate DS and US QAMs
for their eMTAs. Regardless, the customer's Internet would flow over those
same QAMs (unless it was a D3 channel-bonding eMTA, and even then I'm not sure
if the CMTS could be provisioned to use one QAM for voice and the remaining
QAMs for data).
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Frank,
No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the
concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be
using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and
upstream channels which a few operators use for voice traffic only.
On 3/2/2011 12:55 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Scott:
Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that create
separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, voice signaling,
and voice bearer traffic?
Frank
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
