Jan� van Deventer wrote: > > > > On routers, the few nanoseconds saved by outputting voice > first > > are irrelvant compared to the hundreds of milliseconds to > reach > > the satellite. > > > Yes maybe, but won't you run into trouble with jitter?
A small variation in delay (jitter) when the delay is huge anyway might not matter? > And then also I think that if you don't have some kind of > prioritization/fragmentation to take care of big data packets > you can also have a problem with smaller sized voice packets. > I'm thinking here in the line of FRF.12 (fragmentation for > voice on frame-relay networks). I don't know what's a similar > technique for satellite networks... Back to my bus station analogy. You're now talking about letting the San Francisco bus go ahead of the train to Philadelphia to save a few minutes, when it takes days to get to San Francisco anyway. It's a good question really. Is it worth it to do link fragementation and special queuing to improve voice and video on a satellite link? I think he said the relevant direction is a 1 Mbps link. Anyone want to comment on this? Please. PPP has fragmentation and interleaving, so he could use that on the satellite link. > > > > > > > > PS. Nice to see fellow SAfricans on the forum. > > > > I thought you were from Brazil?! Now I am curious! :-) > > > I'm posting from sunny Brazil, that's right! I met a Brazlian > girl in SA and made the big decision to move to Brazil, learn a > new language, and the rest is history. Sounds exotic! One great thing about this list is the ability to communicate with people all over the world. It's great to have you here. Regards, Priscilla > > Kind regards, > Jan� Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71785&t=71706 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
