We are currently running a mix of polycom mp and fx units via h.323 on
our WAN. We have set all the units to not run at any speed greater than
256k. The video quality is great on all of them, even those going into
questionaable frame networks such as Mexico. Our latency from our
headquarters in San Diego to the various video systems ranges from 40ms
to 210ms. Our WAN is composed of IP-enabled Frame links (AT&T's way of
saying MPLS VPN) with the occasionally frame pvc in place. If you are
going to depend on the video quality being good, you should look into
implementing some form of QOS on the network. Most people do this with
voice having a higher rating through the WAN, but we've found that
glitches are more easily recognized and complained about on the video
side.
We are also running voice over the same network, but not the the same
degree. Our voice system is Lucent based, and simply ties into our LAN's
in each office that is connected with Lucent PBX systems. The voice
quality is decent over the links, at least good cell phone quality, and
the latency is minimal. One thing to be concerned about with voice is
it's high demands for bandwidth per call. The Lucent system uses 64K per
connection (which really doesn't measure out quite that high). Using
analog phones with FXS and FXO cards in cisco routers generates sound
quality that is at least as good, and lower overhead. But it is more
difficult to integrate into an existing homogenous network (if you have
disparate pbx systems, take a look at the cisco method). I haven't
worked with the cisco ip phone solutions on my network, but understand
from colleagues that they work extremely well.
On the video side, try to test a few different systems that meet your
needs, even trying different systems from different manufacturers. There
is often a noticable difference in video quality depending on the
systems (ie - our polycom fx h.323 systems have far better video
performance than our polycom mp units with h.323 - but the fx doesn't
have built in isdn and cost quite a bit more).
Have fun with this if you can - video and voice over ip are great ways
to wow upper management teams and are fun to play with.
Good luck
Andras Bellak
Director, WAN Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Whalen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
Many people agree with the below, that 384k is the minimum for
reasonable
live video..
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
> As Manager, Voice/Data systems at the law firm I worked at, we demo'd
two
> different Videoconferencing technologies. I don't remember the first
> vendor, but the second we looked at was Polycom. For both, I had 3
ISDN
> lines installed (3 x 128 kbps = 384 kbps). Use that as a ballpark
figure
> for video - if you're going to use specialized videoconferencing
equipment.
>
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of
> > Thomas N.
> > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:35 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > My company is concerning about running voice/video over IP
> > network. Our WAN
> > is running on fractial T1, so bandwidth limitation is a big problem
to
us.
> > What will be the mininum bandwidth requirement for voice and
> > video traffic?
> > 128k? Thanks!
> >
> > Thomas N.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=19368&t=19351
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
