From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leonardo Balliache Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:51:20 +0000 Subject: [LARTC] Re: LARTC digest, Vol 1 #766 - 9 msgs Message-Id: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lartc@vger.kernel.org Hi, In a busy network you need to use prio. Check how many channels of voice=20 you do need and bandwidth required by each channel (16-32 kbits?). Put=20 voice (udp packets) in the higher priority prio queue and use tbf behind it= =20 to limit traffic via prio to the maximum required for your channels. Or use= =20 htp putting your udp traffic in the higher priority class. Be careful that higher prio traffic can't be more than 20-30% of the link=20 capacity to avoid starvation of lower prio traffic. Don=B4t expect good quality in a busy network. When congestion appears your= =20 udp packets will be dropped with no mercy (udp is an unresponssive=20 protocol) hurting quality. Best regards, Leonardo Balliache Ps: Cisco has (check your IOS version) RTP header compression that can help= =20 a lot to lowering bandwidth requirements. You have to enable it at both=20 sides of the link. Also, why don't try directly with Cisco PQ? At 06:28 a.m. 17/09/02 +0200, you wrote: >From: Andreani Luca >To: "LARTC mailing list (E-mail)" >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:49:28 +0200 >Subject: [LARTC] Voip and Qos tests > >Hello list, > >I'm performing some tests in order to evaluate the possibility to make Voip >calls on a busy network. >I use some cisco routers with wfq enabled. I want to introduce some linux >boxes acting as routers. >I am especially interested in low-speed (64-128 kbps) links with PPP and >frame-relay. > >Haw you some reference about similar tests? > >Whath qdisc (from tc) has best performance in these situations? > >Thank's > >Luca _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/