[87420] in North American Network Operators' Group
Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: The Qo
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fergie)
Fri Dec 16 09:24:30 2005
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:21:53 GMT
To: swmike@swm.pp.se
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-)
I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme
in the VoIP application, plus a 'semi-lossless' link, would be just
fine. ;-)
Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network
analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick
all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win
proposal.
- ferg
-- Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
When you're running voip over a T1/E1, you really want to LLQ the VOIP =
packets because VOIP doesn't like delay (not so much a problem) nor jitt=
er =
(big problem), nor packetloss (not so much a problem if it's less than a=
=
0.1 percent or so).
So combining voip and data traffic on a link that sometimes (more often =
=
now when windows machine have a decent TCP window) go full, even just in=
a =
fraction of a second, means you either go QoS or do what Skype does, cra=
nk =
up the jitter buffer when there is high-jitter, which means latency for =
=
the call goes up.
[snip]
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
