I did a MOS calculation test a few days back and got excellent on the link
for 5 g711 calls, but after a couple of days people starting complaining
about quality and ran the test again and found the MOS was poor.The data
traffic between the sites is not a lot, I know that, still I am having lots
of problems with the VoIp.
I have a IP PBX connected to a router and the router is connected to
wireless bridge and same setup on the other side with IP phones. Anything,
you would suggest.....to take a look at.

thanks,
neil




""Dave""  wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> We have always had good luck with it.....Are you using newer code that can
> at least prioritize the voice packets in the queue to get them out first
??
> You can do this in the AP's now, also if there is a lot of traffic we have
> run parrellel bridges, one set for IPT and the other for data.
>
> d-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> neil_k11
> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 4:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: VoIP over Aironet Wireless [7:70679]
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have two sites connected with Aironet Wireless Bridges. We have
> implemented VoIP between these sites over this wireless link.Considering
the
> Bandwidth of 11 Mbps for 802.11b , it should not have been a problem for a
> few IP phones.Even if we consider the throughput of the Wireless link
> actually is close to 4.5 Mbps, the bandwidth should be sufficient for a
few
> g729 calls or even a few g711 calls, but to contrary the call quality is
not
> good. Anybody experienced the same kind of situation. Any comments?
>
> Thanks,
>
> neil
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70697&t=70679
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to