Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
J. Oquendo wrote: > it does, when someone can realistically point this out please let me > know so I can switch from a DS3 to T1 and save money. > Use the T1 for voice and get a DSL modem for your data use? :) ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
J. Oquendo wrote: > Its fine and dandy, but the problem is you're still getting 5 packets. > You're still saturated period. No QoS in the world outside of your > provider and more bandwidth can alleviate that. Your provider is not > going to care what you do once its passed to the CPE. So look at it > logically again. QoS on a home router... Useless COMING IN. Going out... > Means little but helps MINIMALLY. > I think the road to success, when talking about upstream at least, is partially paved by trying to keep maximum traffic at 4 packets instead of 5, if 5 is going to saturate the link. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
At 05:59 AM 4/17/2008, you wrote: >Not at all "little". If you have a lot of low priority outgoing traffic >(i.e. p2p) saturating your link, uplink traffic shaping will mean the >difference between a completely unintelligible call and something very >acceptable. My network looks like this: Cable modem <> Linksys WRT54GS running Sveasoft LAN port 1 to the phone system running on it's own set of wires LAN ports 2-4 to everything else I've set the priority on port one to the highest and the priority on all the other ports to low and as far as I can tell, we've never had an issue where a big upload has impacted our voice calls. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 11:40 -0400, Chris Mason (Lists) wrote: > Mike wrote: > > do a decent > > job of providing QoS on the upstream, which is where you (usually) need it > > anyways. > > QOS can only be on outgoing, Which is what he meant when he said "upstream" I believe. > you can't set the priority of a packet > after you receive it. Indeed. > The only other solution would be the cooperation > of the ISP to provide QOS upstream of you. Good luck. Heh. Yeah, no doubt. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
Mike wrote: > do a decent > job of providing QoS on the upstream, which is where you (usually) need it > anyways. QOS can only be on outgoing, you can't set the priority of a packet after you receive it. The only other solution would be the cooperation of the ISP to provide QOS upstream of you. Good luck. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
My personnal experience is if you`re looking for an inexpensive solution (SOHO), StreamEngine based routers (a lot of D-Link products are Streamengine based, for example the DI-724GU and the DIR-655) do a decent job of providing QoS on the upstream, which is where you (usually) need it anyways. And the good thing is you often do not have to do anything but set the upload bandwidth (yes there is an automatic mode, but it's not that great). Mike > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Graves > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:34 > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who > needs QoS anyway! > > > May I suggest the following read: > > A Beginners Guide To Successful VOIP Over DSL > > http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30340/83/ > > Which covers both QoS and traffic shaping in small routers. > It was written based upon my own experience with both > Asterisk and hosted PBX providers. > > Michael > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:16:40 -0400, sil wrote: > > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > >Simon wrote: > > > >| Is this worth doing? If so, what ports should i specifiy? > > > > > >http://www.bricklin.com/qos.htm > > > > > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > >Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > >iQIVAwUBSAcxA4OeOV2sx4+mAQKrKg//Vs5n0K1m1+C+sTSol2a1MbFHU/QCh1fT > >u5IwLOvQwcDvxOHikYYk8Ornm5FEbp4cewnCVKS9BeLkurlaQ1qXiwPdCHhnrNhn > >q2ufIskPudXn2cNj9pbAkZhmNL7R7m1XruITBGrXvV4d2WAZy6lmNGnVOhipU5ff > >HIV1aAacawCJG6oJjpD/NvjydHYwP6KgvOJkcLICrb7FEC4bfDfULQxThFF9Jzf3 > >aMzvddM+GdBGzhT0q7FH7JGQmuahlN1kdIyLY8Rw+/ouEgm4xYeyZ486JaBk2xOK > >5ZnYqXXLmNuB7LPIkSCp2Fi5usFUBrKq8nanbvonw9Te3pILCG/FAfg/+O3Y2ZQb > >0aZsUW13BHj9hfiZYLnKGCeJV1hLLuLWH+fP7E9kzFbi8ls7/Ke+oe7l8fgRFfzt > >oaInPjl1tshzbaOesSX1H8OI5QyfGgmuhyVu5E0tFmy9HX7QnxxBrI/GXMwQ3F6/ > >+Qv058sJ5qjQtGMi0fI6GoDa3xQRCzyBgWjuOBHhk64FVnMs3Rdoti69YhsWH52a > >LQMleyChhVQ0nrP5eVaykEryLNRw7jDV1X/ivtPNOHfQ0fN8337AHPmmKpzo22sK > >xdzK+RY1I/qZ+SOD6YPaiKjxaB9gqDPe7jGy41NlGsjnrgUjJh2c2/tvcyDYaW4u > >0J5kiHsMXLI= > >=oY+k > >-END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > >___ > >-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > > >asterisk-users mailing list > >To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > -- > Michael Graves > mgravesmstvp.com > http://blog.mgraves.org > o713-861-4005 > c713-201-1262 > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > skype mjgraves > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ___ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
May I suggest the following read: A Beginners Guide To Successful VOIP Over DSL http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/30340/83/ Which covers both QoS and traffic shaping in small routers. It was written based upon my own experience with both Asterisk and hosted PBX providers. Michael On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:16:40 -0400, sil wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > > > >Simon wrote: > >| Is this worth doing? If so, what ports should i specifiy? > > >http://www.bricklin.com/qos.htm > > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > >iQIVAwUBSAcxA4OeOV2sx4+mAQKrKg//Vs5n0K1m1+C+sTSol2a1MbFHU/QCh1fT >u5IwLOvQwcDvxOHikYYk8Ornm5FEbp4cewnCVKS9BeLkurlaQ1qXiwPdCHhnrNhn >q2ufIskPudXn2cNj9pbAkZhmNL7R7m1XruITBGrXvV4d2WAZy6lmNGnVOhipU5ff >HIV1aAacawCJG6oJjpD/NvjydHYwP6KgvOJkcLICrb7FEC4bfDfULQxThFF9Jzf3 >aMzvddM+GdBGzhT0q7FH7JGQmuahlN1kdIyLY8Rw+/ouEgm4xYeyZ486JaBk2xOK >5ZnYqXXLmNuB7LPIkSCp2Fi5usFUBrKq8nanbvonw9Te3pILCG/FAfg/+O3Y2ZQb >0aZsUW13BHj9hfiZYLnKGCeJV1hLLuLWH+fP7E9kzFbi8ls7/Ke+oe7l8fgRFfzt >oaInPjl1tshzbaOesSX1H8OI5QyfGgmuhyVu5E0tFmy9HX7QnxxBrI/GXMwQ3F6/ >+Qv058sJ5qjQtGMi0fI6GoDa3xQRCzyBgWjuOBHhk64FVnMs3Rdoti69YhsWH52a >LQMleyChhVQ0nrP5eVaykEryLNRw7jDV1X/ivtPNOHfQ0fN8337AHPmmKpzo22sK >xdzK+RY1I/qZ+SOD6YPaiKjxaB9gqDPe7jGy41NlGsjnrgUjJh2c2/tvcyDYaW4u >0J5kiHsMXLI= >=oY+k >-END PGP SIGNATURE- > >___ >-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > >asterisk-users mailing list >To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > -- Michael Graves mgravesmstvp.com http://blog.mgraves.org o713-861-4005 c713-201-1262 sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] skype mjgraves [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian J. Murrell wrote: | I think I've made it clear that my argument is only about uplink shaping | and the requirement for it given the asymmetric nature of a lot of last | mile connections existing today. Funny enough that is *exactly* what | the OP was asking about. | | b. Answers the question with minimal relevance, not even a band-aid solution. You fixing up inbound traffic will do nothing for a horrible conversation if you're congested coming in. Solution would be to add more bandwidth. Else you could fiddle around around creating all the fuzzy rules on the planet shaping traffic all sorts of methods once its in your CPE but this WILL NOT HELP YOU HAVE A BETTER CONVERSATION. When it does, when someone can realistically point this out please let me know so I can switch from a DS3 to T1 and save money. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSAdXC4OeOV2sx4+mAQIVFw/+NttSjlj132/ikQZN4pI6kJJH49GxJiMp aA9ugBu0jA9ZXSgU8oHw9ZbgkZfjalM1vtmekOW+w4eXUwlx82jEGEJ1e7iBT30e wB9cOOMlpn1+sFrZxesAz/8a7ziFC02Ydf2+V3j8FfPga8DuHWtF/hubm7p/d3Zy Km1Vm1ruajCTM9PAvVO/Jj2TybzYwWj7Pj2TzwZEsYCXUuj5/E0fnQjJKCI4q6e6 UHsOs5tpqedzRCSJ2Zv96xkHAFWDLOUke2vXp20ZETnOxqOVtULm+EuYXsHvauYN 6sMZf7Tq04+jMrbR1GWLCevvEoJN1XpTEOBb3yv7S/7U7Ih/mQfluHNj4hVUACYs vFlIJyHBeLxeAOH5VFm66SDtIQ2TKGLuFblDD5E6MmhXYdhwdwsmGecfaEJHR/+K 83CDQ1P1tDtN6JjcYXsoN8125uRKYH2EQunfZq01GJQlj6QNJcZHcv9FrRYXan42 7yxB+h1UpgNLMAthOQsQ8+nt7rRD8v0GlPZBwXlRF1n2S2jAVJiwlrihfiW5xA6C LsRuU7GIo/XkX/zNQk2BIGszziIEGcYaJjYnXBdsP2QN6IwkCz8xwQbgtssSMqmd kbFelVI4BepzbG2lUVkmUAavoFL7T1c9eIyMU9vunOJtP/azTadXP9ITS936mKYK pYOvun1cnqU= =I0yU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 09:25 -0400, J. Oquendo wrote: > > Is it? So you're telling me if you're saturated on the way in, fixing up > your packets on the way out is the solution. I think I've made it clear that my argument is only about uplink shaping and the requirement for it given the asymmetric nature of a lot of last mile connections existing today. Funny enough that is *exactly* what the OP was asking about. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian J. Murrell wrote: | Not at all "little". If you have a lot of low priority outgoing traffic | (i.e. p2p) saturating your link, uplink traffic shaping will mean the | difference between a completely unintelligible call and something very | acceptable. Is it? So you're telling me if you're saturated on the way in, fixing up your packets on the way out is the solution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSAdPUoOeOV2sx4+mAQJT6w/7Bm4hcyAaaLlwlYo8Dsfw5oUCUOW+0TLy jrIWS1piOYbe+MBjpoliOF7nJETrQnFUP5y/kZjjOTxCuyz1XLlj7ExOdddGXudp My2tO81/Gkx/kicOQDtdxLKtMBWI8ix3Ef1Z1dtQIh4DYJqSGbzgTez5D1WfxhXG IZ2IFq8CKzpjT7oAExmo/l7QqetCXPMgM4gZ24CDXlESL/esYBJL5sWfzG+4dLyJ 4INMpPnckXjdf/WyCIeMDrGRAEKpNQ8Ls+X/EAgwqJ83Z6iTJUrW6xMfO9KXAlDP BNwrX1/Xlx0quNd+tH+u0j8DcQ0sy9jt4KixOQYqCb9VtpDz5Ucf8zyqMC277ugz FwaDSpUlkASe/JK0m/IFf4lvnrgBna1jDFa5k13u8R+Ja1rcb0+S7I5Rk6MxpBCo xIfRIGHqO/hmAv3ckj2qIoGetlPZNTT94fgGV/d5UnAU4eOTuNXeZURS9Wf3XVN6 Yc90oGHKWfB3O0XJNS/QI4LeI7BxWJUDmyC1PczKfhIj9ox9K+GD1tSvto3nSqZE NFpdcG7Ch1EDAYZuptvAp+3tKy+ifLYmultAq7/ehBeJ+t0GJxxwFqIYTGwuUCBh M0Gd570V4baOhl3UY917uwkTb4bBXS+9wh2J7qTUqVmGlOYC/6x0MrJLabetQiKT A5+VziQWa/Y= =tSIZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 08:36 -0400, J. Oquendo wrote: > > Brian J. Murrell wrote: > > | But certainly at my choke point which is of course my Internet uplink, ^^^ > I > | can apply QOS (i.e. traffic shaping, which is what the OP's router was > | offering) to make sure that what little capacity is there is giving > | priority to my voice traffic. > Let's take a bare bones look at this. Let's say your connection is 300k Downstream or upstream? Notice I said "Internet uplink" in my previous message. Anyone at all familiar with traffic shaping understands that they can only shape the uplink, not the downlink. The best you can do with the downlink is to "police" it to try to keep the congestion below 100%. But that's mostly alright given how the ISPs have perverted the Internet with "asymmetric" last mile connections to consumers. > and you have five packets coming in at 60k each to saturate your network: First of all,your whole example is pointless as you are clearly talking about downstream and I have already said that anyone knowledgeable with traffic shaping knows you cannot shape the downlink only the uplink. However, let's see where else your example fails. My MTU is only about 1500 bytes or so, so 60k packets to me are impossible. I'd tend to guess that for most of the Internet, packets max out at about 1500 given the prevalence of ethernet connected devices. So in order to saturate my 300k you'd have to send me 200 packets all in that one second. > Provider to you > > Packet 1 > You > Packet 2 > You > Packet 3 > You > Packet 4 > You > Packet 5 > You > > You believe that this is happening: > > Packet 1 > You ---> This is voice send it first --> Device > Packet 2 > You ---> This is voice send it first --> Device > Packet 3 > You ---> This is P2P leave it 4 last --> Device > Packet 4 > You ---> This is P2P leave it 4 last --> Device > Packet 5 > You ---> This is AIM make it second! --> Device As I've said, you cannot shape this traffic. I've already conceded that. But again, OP was talking about uplink shaping, not downlink. > Its fine and dandy, but the problem is you're still getting 5 packets. > You're still saturated period. Right. You cannot shape the downlink. You can only police it to prevent packet loss. > No QoS in the world outside of your > provider and more bandwidth can alleviate that. If more bandwidth is an option, but I already stated that for many people, it's not an option. They have exactly one or two choices and they are subscribed to their maximum available. > QoS on a home router... Useless COMING IN. Going out... > Means little but helps MINIMALLY. Not at all "little". If you have a lot of low priority outgoing traffic (i.e. p2p) saturating your link, uplink traffic shaping will mean the difference between a completely unintelligible call and something very acceptable. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian J. Murrell wrote: | Maybe your understanding of QOS and mine is different. Of course I have | no illusions that I can assign a priority to my packets that is going to | be meaningful to anyone once they leave my network. | | But certainly at my choke point which is of course my Internet uplink, I | can apply QOS (i.e. traffic shaping, which is what the OP's router was | offering) to make sure that what little capacity is there is giving | priority to my voice traffic. | | Think of my ISP uplink as that moderately congested road in which | emergency vehicles need to have other casual traffic pull over and let | it through. Traffic shaping is the effect of those vehicles pulling | over and letting the voice traffic through in priority. This is exactly | what OP's router was allowing him to do, albeit in what sounds like a | really crappy way -- only 3 ports or something like that. | | b. Let's take a bare bones look at this. Let's say your connection is 300k and you have five packets coming in at 60k each to saturate your network: Provider to you Packet 1 > You Packet 2 > You Packet 3 > You Packet 4 > You Packet 5 > You You believe that this is happening: Packet 1 > You ---> This is voice send it first --> Device Packet 2 > You ---> This is voice send it first --> Device Packet 3 > You ---> This is P2P leave it 4 last --> Device Packet 4 > You ---> This is P2P leave it 4 last --> Device Packet 5 > You ---> This is AIM make it second! --> Device Its fine and dandy, but the problem is you're still getting 5 packets. You're still saturated period. No QoS in the world outside of your provider and more bandwidth can alleviate that. Your provider is not going to care what you do once its passed to the CPE. So look at it logically again. QoS on a home router... Useless COMING IN. Going out... Means little but helps MINIMALLY. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSAdCdoOeOV2sx4+mAQImCA//Q3pXHy/hUUqc/RvN/WNXzYiXMVR5gmKR xdNc+GZkN0ks16wKqJLxXITDwXE9vWygEmY3G97xo9f3jFR/NihtiTDTo7n/nvA6 GDC1gOw5UY20793ACHdL4mroCL7A8UMUdZGDZyyhQVSIpKZ4Uhk9bwgDPzRCYkOp rwgL2WyQAPrk6GjKg/XIg3H6vBtI6ZcuXV5xu5CoPxOb1hPEzj/AX/OiQbZlAGPY CLFWnVSs1YBM4rq2Jt3KA7kKPsFST81JMMWSxU+axKzmaa6LmU29FgX4WG8jBG5s 0Nxk0PkXIzu6XfLVkU8Dop5FCUpxbDRmh6OyXyvluQ2SEBh48ZiPSnClDI+Ue9JN J5z2QQen8qtK/HdbCDp08MF6MSiEceYYCcwWHGMg9KlD3u2FgY9rrPZ3hKrP9Tz5 1ciLXig5mvyhWBGIS5mIhg7QnnWAzMsXjbQ8buHgir82ptDbM3wSyWdkWHNR47Fr uFe+QGVV4JHFzHsDkeo/qfGA2juwazMfNXJyV67vWnyZNhnhtZ+kEAbMXeABvhjQ rw/bgtq7gdiv/fwIgq51WKEPQbyHozRpqdyZPUzBJBsDND5iKivzIboug+hS4QJH tqK/c29mir/0D5CbXswhCTjbiUIYIyH8Gu+OU3G1uhNrv+TRm7E+8jCtvM+zfvXu AaTY8D7BmJo= =ldzm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 07:54 -0400, sil wrote: > > Apparently man people don't understand that those QoS settings on > routers mean little most of the time. Most providers resell QoS as a > premium service, so while many waste their time "painting their packets" > those markings get stripped. Maybe your understanding of QOS and mine is different. Of course I have no illusions that I can assign a priority to my packets that is going to be meaningful to anyone once they leave my network. But certainly at my choke point which is of course my Internet uplink, I can apply QOS (i.e. traffic shaping, which is what the OP's router was offering) to make sure that what little capacity is there is giving priority to my voice traffic. Think of my ISP uplink as that moderately congested road in which emergency vehicles need to have other casual traffic pull over and let it through. Traffic shaping is the effect of those vehicles pulling over and letting the voice traffic through in priority. This is exactly what OP's router was allowing him to do, albeit in what sounds like a really crappy way -- only 3 ports or something like that. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian J. Murrell wrote: | | Yeah, well, that's all fine and dandy as long as "more capacity" is an | option. Many people are already subscribed to the most capacity | available to them and using it. | | b. Apparently man people don't understand that those QoS settings on routers mean little most of the time. Most providers resell QoS as a premium service, so while many waste their time "painting their packets" those markings get stripped. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSAc5R4OeOV2sx4+mAQKEpQ//dYu+9MFaHgHzbBntTMbUHuY4usW5Aq+L crMlq3nYqgi8kWfVShhEozKHvtaYc7J7YBSkE2QprhM/YTp+wE3Oy9NM5GU6Ckhz IDaFNteO62zyxg5ljE81iIQd0tTJjutIf3FQVZBegzpINGIiEkjKBfbx/4UiO6HL bexoS3pnV4xjjS8xO8rMNl8+1XVubpG42K1/alw0G7y7W9Pog+u67+dLx1Tnx0EX RTlAeLZ64u5hy7CXeRdLSM3Onn8IuCnOIP2Py4OEUjLH8K4yMb83IVlhv+KSp4q4 5Tw7LWFsM/NZ0J6xz3MeUnXJHOkNK6Z5UJAfV1LmjiWdpxDCfYDifu6Y5D425+po gd/zHRI+SZJAhzN4l0oWIxSRQdCL6APyFqYFftO9bxAzDoK6EMXADIPvc3Ovb/A0 eUh6rZAe3y5/FfQy29GN23u5//ahFDCzQ9YqhbDjLEc/Z+PLi/lsEdWwWMrUMyus Q4nBs9osuxjRZYWEKUTLal+ItNL/BSiqHurN1T/l3W1/xigYiZHByxEBI2/+jYX6 66wQU6CSE2YC+n9R+rbsAP5OawOTxpXnDdTXEydHCPgdOAS5HmrwTp0t5MNZ4V/N iSGIBBAcV0HJIKRKaeGweIRGStAQPXbfQ9Qha7uYOqnyYwPbt18/vw08YlbdXXCO woCJ+I+AchI= =+Lgr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 07:16 -0400, sil wrote: > Simon wrote: > > | Is this worth doing? If so, what ports should i specifiy? > > > http://www.bricklin.com/qos.htm Yeah, well, that's all fine and dandy as long as "more capacity" is an option. Many people are already subscribed to the most capacity available to them and using it. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] QOS for outgoing SIP ... Who needs QoS anyway!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Simon wrote: | Is this worth doing? If so, what ports should i specifiy? http://www.bricklin.com/qos.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIVAwUBSAcxA4OeOV2sx4+mAQKrKg//Vs5n0K1m1+C+sTSol2a1MbFHU/QCh1fT u5IwLOvQwcDvxOHikYYk8Ornm5FEbp4cewnCVKS9BeLkurlaQ1qXiwPdCHhnrNhn q2ufIskPudXn2cNj9pbAkZhmNL7R7m1XruITBGrXvV4d2WAZy6lmNGnVOhipU5ff HIV1aAacawCJG6oJjpD/NvjydHYwP6KgvOJkcLICrb7FEC4bfDfULQxThFF9Jzf3 aMzvddM+GdBGzhT0q7FH7JGQmuahlN1kdIyLY8Rw+/ouEgm4xYeyZ486JaBk2xOK 5ZnYqXXLmNuB7LPIkSCp2Fi5usFUBrKq8nanbvonw9Te3pILCG/FAfg/+O3Y2ZQb 0aZsUW13BHj9hfiZYLnKGCeJV1hLLuLWH+fP7E9kzFbi8ls7/Ke+oe7l8fgRFfzt oaInPjl1tshzbaOesSX1H8OI5QyfGgmuhyVu5E0tFmy9HX7QnxxBrI/GXMwQ3F6/ +Qv058sJ5qjQtGMi0fI6GoDa3xQRCzyBgWjuOBHhk64FVnMs3Rdoti69YhsWH52a LQMleyChhVQ0nrP5eVaykEryLNRw7jDV1X/ivtPNOHfQ0fN8337AHPmmKpzo22sK xdzK+RY1I/qZ+SOD6YPaiKjxaB9gqDPe7jGy41NlGsjnrgUjJh2c2/tvcyDYaW4u 0J5kiHsMXLI= =oY+k -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
