I am using two 2621 routers with AIM ATM boards. I have two PVCs one for voice and one for data. I have used both CBR abd VBR-RT on the voice pipe and always use UBR on the data pipe. While CBR provides a constant minimum bandwidth, VBR-RT adjusts acording to your average bandwidth, burst bandwidth and burst cell rate.
I have performed several tests over the link (T1) and have found that using VBR-RT for voice traffic has a lower average delay and fewer lost packets than CBR. This is especially true at high volumes.
Using basic destination routing, I have been able to run 15 concurrent voice calls very high quality. The 16th has marginal quality. All the while, I am flooding the data link with FTP, HTTP and generic UDP traffic. When using source address based routing, the results have been less desirable, but are getting better.
Interesting. i have a similar case and I am pondering whether LLQ is needed to prioritize voice over data. I think I don't because vBR-rt has natural priority over ubr already at egress port of router. just want to know your experinece as well.
I'm not using PVC bundle as signalling and media paths are different
IntroductionCUCM Routing RulesDial String implementation PolicyCUCM Routing LogicSIP URI Call Routing Analysis+++ Case Study: 1 ++++++ Case Study: 2 +++Conclusion
Over the last few months, I have had the privilege of working on SI...
Are you getting this error “Installer User Interface Mode Not Supported. The installer cannot run in this UI mode. To specify the interface mode, use the -i command-line option, followed by the UI mode identifier. The value UI mode identifiers...