What vexes VoIP users?
khelms at ispalliance.net
Wed Mar 2 10:48:55 CST 2011
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).
> -----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?
> 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:
>> 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?
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
More information about the NANOG