The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Feb> msg00047



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

E2E VoIP over MPLS ('VoMPLS') Header Compression

  • From: Dave Cooper <cooper@GBLX.net>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:50:13 -0800
  • CC: raymond zhang <zhangr@info.net>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS"<gash@att.com>, "MPLS@UU.net" <MPLS@UU.NET>, George Swallow<swallow@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>, "GOODE, B (Bur),ALABS" <bgoode@att.com>, "Hand, James C, ALABS" <jameshand@att.com>
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01


Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>In message <5.1.0.14.0.20030218154944.0283e668@delta.info.net>, raymond zhang w
>rites:
>  
>
>>Regarding payload size, firstly the voice frame size varies with the ITU 
>>codecs selected on the CPE.  For example, G.729a has 10ms per voice 
>>sampling frame and one could configure to stuff either two or three frames 
>>per VoIP packet... Hence 20 to 30 byte payload.  Larger payload size may 
>>present an issue in terms of loss, esp for a global network since loss of 
>>one packet would result in multiple voice frame losses.
>>
>>As for vendors, I'd say any CPE vendors should have this capability built in.
>>..
>>    
>>
>
>
>I think the SPs should speak as to whether the bandwidth inefficiency
>of 30 byte payloads or the potential to lose a packet with a 200 byte
>is a greater problem.  All of the SP I've spoken to that are doing
>  
>
Bandwidth inefficiency is a much greater problem.

>VOIP are using diffserv EF service or otherwise insuring that voice
>traffic is rarely if ever dropped.
>
Correct.

>
>Curtis
>
>
>
>  
>