...@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
For option 1, using Windows... this can be implemented with Group Policies,
taking it out of the hands of end users, and can be associated with specific
application executable and/or specific IP address source/destination.
- Sam H
From: cisco-voip
From what I understand, it's not so much as "software" as it is a plugin for
jabber that enables Jabber to send the medianet signaling. I don't believe it's
a function of iOS/android Jabber though, but I could be mistaken
Ben Amick
Telecom Analyst
From: Lelio Fulgenzi
good question Ben. i look forward to reading this thread.
i've been meaning to read up on mediaNet, and it seems it's more required than
not, especially for QoS.
are you suggesting (with option 3) that there is software you can install on
desktops? what about mobile devices?
QoS, both
14 matches
Mail list logo
