[138292] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: What vexes VoIP users?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Wed Mar 2 11:26:43 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Scott Helms'" <khelms@ispalliance.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D6E61A9.4010405@ispalliance.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:26:40 -0600
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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:khelms@ispalliance.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM
To: frnkblk@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=20
concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be=20
using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and=20
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
--=20
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
