What vexes VoIP users?

Scott Helms khelms at ispalliance.net
Wed Mar 2 10:48:55 CST 2011


Frank,

     It gets better (which is sad) in the case of Charter if a customer 
ordered voice and data they were given a normal Moto SB for Internet 
data and a separate Arris eMTA (with no CPEs allowed other than the TA 
and the Ethernet port disabled) for voice.  The channels they were using 
for voice even terminated on a different CMTS altogether.

On 3/2/2011 11:26 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying.  I can't imagine an MSO using separate DS and US QAMs for their eMTAs.  Regardless, the customer's Internet would flow over those same QAMs (unless it was a D3 channel-bonding eMTA, and even then I'm not sure if the CMTS could be provisioned to use one QAM for voice and the remaining QAMs for data).
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms at ispalliance.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM
> To: frnkblk at iname.com
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
>
> Frank,
>
>       No, not all.  There seems to be some confusion here between the
> concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be
> using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and
> upstream channels which a few operators use for voice traffic only.
>
> On 3/2/2011 12:55 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> Scott:
>>
>> Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, voice signaling, and voice bearer traffic?
>>
>> Frank


-- 
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------





More information about the NANOG mailing list