...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Ben
> Amick <bam...@humanarc.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 4, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* Evgeny Izetov; Ryan Huff
> *Cc:* Cisco VoIP Group
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
>
>
> Evgeny,
>
> That’s great, and I wa
oip-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
on behalf of Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com<mailto:bam...@humanarc.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Evgeny Izetov; Ryan Huff
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
Evgeny,
That’s great, and I
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Ben Amick
<bam...@humanarc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 11:18 AM
To: Evgeny Izetov; Ryan Huff
Cc: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
Evgeny,
That’s great, and I was able to
<cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
I saw a CiscoLive! session recently that seemed to recommend the ports and
access-lists approach. The idea is that you can now specify separate port
ranges for audio and video in SIP Profile. The session g
gt;
>
>
> *Ben Amick*
>
> Telecom Analyst
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Huff [mailto:ryanh...@outlook.com <ryanh...@outlook.com>]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2017 9:18 PM
> *To:* Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com>
> *Cc:* NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com>; Cis
CCIE <natec...@gmail.com<mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>; Cisco VoIP Group
<cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
Ben,
By flat network; I am to assume that there is no layer 2 partition between
rtp/signaling an
: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 9:18 PM
To: Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com>
Cc: NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com>; Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
Ben,
By flat network; I am to assume that there is no layer 2 partition between
rtp/sig
ec...@gmail.com<mailto:natec...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com<mailto:bam...@humanarc.com>>; Cisco VoIP
Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
It's a shame really ... MPLS is f
]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 8:40 PM
To: NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com>; Cisco VoIP Group
<cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
It's a shame really ... MPLS is far superior IMO, for many reasons. Call it
iW
It's a shame really ... MPLS is far superior IMO, for many reasons. Call it
iWAN, DMVPN, AutoVPN whatever, it is still as Nate says, public Internet.
Try getting a 30 or 60 minute SLA with escalation after 15 minutes from a
public Comcast or Time Warner/Charter package.
On Jan 3, 2017, at
Or take the most approach of do nothing.
My personal favorite is to use codecs where QoS matters less, like iLBC, OPUS,
etc.
So many business are getting rid of the QoS capable WAN and just doing VPNs,
even if they have fancy names that make it sound better than public internet.
Sent from my
...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Ben
Amick
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:25 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net>
Subject: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
So, I know this is an age old question that's debated, but I've been wondering
if anyone here has a perspective here in regards
_
From: cisco-voip
<cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>>
on behalf of Ben Amick <bam...@humanarc.com<mailto:bam...@humanarc.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: [cisco-voip] Ja
Building
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net> on behalf of Ben Amick
<bam...@humanarc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Cisco VoIP Group
Subject: [cisco-voip] Jabber/CIPC and QoS
So, I know this i
So, I know this is an age old question that's debated, but I've been wondering
if anyone here has a perspective here in regards to QoS for softphones.
Obviously, with hardphones, you usually partition a separate VLAN with
AutoQoS/DSCP tags, but that isn't applicable with softphones.
I've heard
15 matches
Mail list logo
