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
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 i
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
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
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
: 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
>
>
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
-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
| th
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
-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
| acc
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 O
-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
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.
Mayb
-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 th
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 capac
-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
iQIVAwUBSAcx
16 matches
Mail list logo
