> - The number for "Estimated IP Overhead" was obtained by > subtracting (additional channel usage) from (single channel usage.) > This is possibly inaccurate.
It should generally be pretty accurate. You might try running 3 calls just to confirm. > ILBC: > one call: 56134.91 bps/67.45 pps (28.0 kbps) > two calls: 98679.11 bps/102.41 pps (49.3 kbps) > > Thus: > For every additional call: 42544 bps (21.2 kbps) > Est. IP/IAX2 overhead (1 call): 13590 bps ( 6.7 kbps) > Raw number of calls per megabit: 47 Remember ILBC uses a different frame length (thus the lower pps count) and because it's not going to line up exactly with the G.729 or ulaw frames, there will be even fewer. However, I still don't see only 6.7kbps. That seems just a bit too low. > GSM > one call: 70958.16 bps/102.13 pps (35.4 kbps) > two calls: 100455.23 bps/102.63 pps (50.2 kbps) > > Thus: > For every additional call: 29497 bps (14.7 kbps) > Est. IP/IAX2 overhead (1 call): 41461 bps (20.7 kbps) > Raw number of calls per megabit: 68 IP overhead is purely a factor of the number of packets (PPS). GSM, ulaw, Speex, and G.729 should all have identical overheads, in principle. > ------------- > LPC10 > one call: 43855.44 bps/89.94 pps (21.9 kbps) > two calls: 56059.18 bps/100.81 pps (28.0 kbps) > > Thus: > For every additional call: 12203 bps ( 6.1 kbps) > Est. IP/IAX2 overhead (1 call): 31561 bps (15.8 kbps) > Raw number of calls per megabit: 164 I would predict LPC10 to be around 4.8, not 6.1.... I wonder why the discrepency. Perhaps the IAX overhead is coming into play more here... > SPEEX > one call: 74817.18 bps/101.06 pps (37.4 kbps) > two calls: 109692.68 bps/102.18 pps (54.8 kbps) > > Thus: > For every additional call: 34875 bps (17.4 kbps) > Est. IP/IAX2 overhead (1 call): 39941 bps (19.9 kbps) > Raw number of calls per megabit: 57 Changing Asterisk's selection of options on Speex could improve this. > I am a consultant, and I'm happy to do this kind of work to further > develop your products or deployments of VoIP/Asterisk systems. Mail > me (jtodd @loligo.com) for details. Your work speaks for itself, but for what it's worth, I also give you my own thumbs up for your dedicated understanding of the mechanics, debugging, and testing of Asterisk. Mark _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
