- A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
RE: VoIP over Frame Relay [7:87090] posted 04/10/2004
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]

My company offers a product that lets company's send all of there PSTN
traffic to us via SIP so they can cancel the PRI(s) they have ordered
from the local RBOC or CLEC.  I would say that about 95% of the
customers pass the VoIP traffic to use via an IP VPN that is managed by
the customer or the IP provider, about 4% of the traffic comes to us via
an MPLS solution mostly AT&T's new PtP MPLS product. The last 1% is
frame relay and I think that number is getting smaller everyday.  

If you our looking at moving your VoIP traffic to an IP backbone I would
look at Sprint.  They offer a CoS option at the gateways and there NOC
as a very nice working relationship with Cisco TAC so it makes trouble
shooting of network problems very easy. 

Please let me know if I can be of any help to you.


-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
John Neiberger
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:56 AM
To: cisco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: VoIP over Frame Relay [7:87090]

John Neiberger wrote:
> To all who have implemented VoIP over FR:
> When we were doing some VoIP testing a while back, we were told
> by several
> people (and read this in a few books) that it was really
> necessary to use
> FRTS so that no individual PVC could ever burst over CIR. This
> would cut
> down on the amount of packet loss and variable latency within
> the cloud.
> I'm wondering if this is actually necessary. I can see the
> reasoning, and I
> guess I agree with the reasoning, but I wonder what your
> experience has
> been. I'm beginning to think that as long as we have LLQ
> configured
> correctly, we'd likely have a high enough MOS that no one would
> notice
> intermittent variable latency caused by bursting over CIR.
> Then again, they might. :-)  The problem this creates is that
> our LAN
> support group complains rather loudly about the restricted
> bandwidth. It
> dramatically slows them down when they're pushing out updates
> and images
> remotely.
> Any thoughts on this?
> Thanks,
> John
> --

Hmm... I wonder if the lack of response on this topic is an indication
the lack of people actually moving to VoIP. Or, is that there aren't
many doing VoIPoFR?

This is actually a rather important question because the answer might
our hand regarding our network topology. We've been using FR for years
it has served us well. However, given the number of sites and the type
connectivity we require, we may be forced to move to some sort of IP VPN
get away from this traffic shaping issue.

However, if we determine that LLQ and/or RSVP is sufficient without
it's at least possible that our current network would serve us well for
few more years.

Another reason this is important is that we're current Qwest customers
we feel that their iQ solution would work for us but it's way to
The really unfortunate aspect of this is that if we drop them for frame
relay and they also later lose our voice business, our account executive
would basically lose his job. He's paid based on the revenue his
generate. I know that from a business standpoint I shouldn't take that
account, but how can I help it? I don't want to be responsible for
someone their job unnecessarily.

Oh, the joys of the telco/datacomm world, huh?


Message Posted at:
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the GroupStudy Store:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: