We are currently working on a solution for a client that would require running VOIP over a Cisco 350 multi bridge. Has anyone had any experience doing this? If so was it succesful and were you satisfied with the results?
I did read that, however I also have a print out of a CISCO sucess story where they did exactly this for a Canadian School, VOIP over wireless. However they do not mention the wireless equipment used which is unfortunat. As well we hooked up a similiar system using Breezecom equipment and it worked fine. As for my CISCO rep. I can't seem to get help from anyone on this question, he keeps claiming that he is forwarding my question to the right person to ask and I never get a follow up.
I am not sure how Cisco is implementing VoIP on the 350. Enterasys can support Spectralink's VoIP phones as well as support the SVP priority protocol in the RoamAbout platform. Call your local Enterasys Networks office for details.
The Cisco Aironet gear was one fo the first products on the market to support Spectralink VoIP 802.11 solution, (even before Entrasys- CabletronBayNetwave at that time). This was in the FH gear. When Spectralink came out with a DS version phone, the platform used to develop and test it on was Aironet.
The present Cisco 340 and 350 support the DS Spectralink phones by default.
Hope all is well with you--it's been a while since we last spoke. Real easy one for you:
Can we send Voice packets through a pair of your BR342 bridges?
This distance is short (13.5 Yagi to 13.5 Yagi)
The link is strong 0 to 2% retries
The number of phone users will be relatively small--less than 20 per location with NO data.
Let me know
Yes. I have 4 schools with Aironet bridges running VOIP, been up almost a year now. No problems. If you have any specific questions feel free to email me. email@example.com
Just be careful with this.
We have a customer here in Australia (Electronic Arts) who have about twenty IP phones running across the link. This is IP Telephony. No data just voice.
As for VoIP (i.e. Cisco routers on either end) you just need to use your normal queuing methodologies (LLQ for instance) to make sure the VoIP traffic is prioritised and fragmented successfully.
As always the quality of the radio link is tha main consideration.
Remember if layer 1 doesn't work then layer 3 isn't going to work.
The 350 product line (bridges, access points, interface cards) all recognize and prioritize 802.11 voice traffic. Just make sure you have your routers configured for QoS as the 350's do not "set" the prioritization bits.
One problem seems to be that the 350 bridge is not yet released according to CISCO. The keep listing it as "coming soon". Does anyone know when it will be available? Is anyone having any issues running VOIP over a 340 or 350 bridge? Especially does anyone notice any issues with the bridge operating at half duplex?
There were some posting to this forum where the users have used VoIP over the bridges sucessfully. I have also heard of this. But I have also heard of problems when there was a lot of data traffic mixed in and caused voice quality issues. The best method would be to use two seperate links and dedicate one to VoIP, the other for data.
The BR350 is in Beta presently, and first customer ship (FCS) is slated for July 2ed.
Hello Bruce !
I will appreciate in you can send me a Visio Drawing
and wich type of AP will support 2 traffic data/voice
Just to clarify here, are you saying that in order to properly deploy VoIp within a wireless network every node has to have a router installed to prioritize traffic? Is there an Aironet product that has the ability to give QOS without routers?
Can anyone tell me if I can have a H.323 based VoIP (Netmeeting) sucessfully runiing on a network with the WLAN 350 bridge to a number of clients? If so, can someone comment on the performance. If not, could someone tell me what has to be doone (if anything possible), to make this work.
I have done it. In fact I had the distant end bridge connected to a 350 access point and I was using Spectralink VoIP wireless phones. This site was 100% wireless. But since we had a low number of users the lack of QoS wasn't and issue.