Because you need to use GRE to create a virtual interface on the router and thus
enable the use of routing protocols. At least, that's the only way I know how to do
it.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:19 PM
: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 2:24 AM
To: Charles Youse
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VoIP over IPsec
Thus spake "Charles Youse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In order to cut costs in our telecom budget I'm toying with the idea
>
So do you suppose that in my scenario, I'd be better off leaving the VoIP out of the
encrypted tunnels and use a separate [cleartext] path for them?
I'm worried about the security implications, not because I feel there is a huge
security risk but because I'm sure the topic will be brought up.
Hello again,
I've heard a lot of encouraging things on this list in response to my previous
inquiries about VoIP - hoping you can help me out again.
In order to cut costs in our telecom budget I'm toying with the idea of replacing a
lot of our inter-office leased lines with VPN connections ove
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 2:43 PM
To: Charles Youse
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Voice over IP - performance
> Does anyone have any real-world figures for VoIP performance on
> various platforms? In other words, how man
Does anyone have any real-world figures for VoIP performance on various platforms? In
other words, how many calls can an otherwise unused e.g., Cisco 2600 be expected to
handle if it's the conversion point from trunked voice calls to IP. Some rough
numbers for different codecs on different ha
But in order for RTP to resync the out-of-order packets it must introduce some delay,
no?
And that delay causes issues.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 5:21 PM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic G
: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:40 PM
To: Bill Woodcock; Charles Youse
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: VoIP QOS best practices
--On Monday, February 10, 2003 10:19 -0800 Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> It works fine on 64k connections, okay on many 9600bps connections. T1 i
Indeed, but in this case I'm dealing with a private network that doesn't
have so much surplus as to guarantee no contention.
C.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:23 PM
To: Charles Youse
Cc: Bill Woodco
But I could conceivably have 10+ voice channels over a T-1, I still don't quite
understand how, without prioritizing voice traffic, the quality won't degrade...
C.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:20 PM
T
down will make people shout.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:05 PM
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
That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense - is it that QoS doesn't work as advertised?
As someone who is looking to deploy VoIP in the near future this is of particular
interest.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 12:48
Title: RE: Weird networking issue.
By nature, a hub is half-duplex - it's a repeater.
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David G. Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc: '[EM
Title: RE: 18.0.0.0/8
Care to elaborate?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:12 PM
To: jcvaraillon
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: 18.0.0.0/8
On Friday, Dec 20, 2002, at 13:02 Canada/Eastern, jcvaraillon wrote:
> 4Today
What game is this? I have some gear at SJC1 and I've not heard anything.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David Schwartz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nanog
Subject: Re: C&W Move
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:23:20 -0500, Moe Allen
I think you're confusing commercial peering agreements with
providing customers the ability to advertise their routes via BGP.
Two different issues.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Jeff S Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [
Really, the only way this could happen is if Router B is not announcing its
routes to 172.16.16/24 and Router A has a default route to its Ethernet
interface.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 9:06 PM
To: E.B. Dreger
C
I've never subscribed to the "Are you sure?" concept, or preventing problems
by removing functionality, effectively tying an operator's hands behind
his/her back. The fact is that redistributing BGP into an IGP can have its
uses (though not usually, okay, never, when carrying a full table on the
18 matches
Mail list logo
