Looking at it from the wrong viewpoint. In this situation we are assuming that VOIP traffic is sharing a whole series of transmit queues with no VOIP traffic, specifically general Internet traffic. VOIP and similar is relativly high PPS for the data rate, but is in comparison to general data flows low volume (octets wise) and constant (VBR action in codecs can cause a flow to vary in B/W by > 50% in short time windows but the actual variance is small, generally single or double digit kbps, not double or triple digit mbps. If all the traffic in a queue was VOIP or equiv, than in the aggregate of tens to thousands of calls the rate is very, very smooth and you can go ahead and load that pipe to 95% or better on a 30 second average without burst drop. General data usage... Very, very bursty. These days a $350 laptop is easily capable of generating 200KB bursts at 600 - 800 Mbit without even trying. Unless the core links handling bulk traffic are a large multiple of the customer interface rates (real or emulated by a very granular shaper) and on average have a good multiple of the largest customer service rate free you are going to see burst drop On 6/9/14, 6:00 PM, PE wrote:
But isn't congestion caused by bytes and not number of packets? So, by that argument, larger packets will fill the queue faster than smaller and thus have a higher propensity to drop? And when it does, it is a bigger chunk of audio so it could actually reduce quality rather than improve it.
Again, it's all theoretical unless someone has the tools, time, and motivation to publish an article with empirical data.
On Jun 9, 2014, at 9:45 PM, "Mark R Lindsey, ECG" <lindsey at e-c-group.com <mailto:lindsey at e-c-group.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com <mailto:abalashov at evaristesys.com>> wrote:
On 06/09/2014 02:50 PM, Mark R Lindsey wrote:
2. Increase the ptime from 20 ms to 30-40 ms to reduce packet-drop exposure
Or does this thesis lean on countervailing tendencies, such as overall reduced PPS in a higher ptime scenario?
You're on the right track with ptime. The theory idea is that:
(A) Most packet loss is due to congestion
(B) When congestion occurs the router selects a packet to drop
(C) The routers pick a packet to discard more-or-less at random
(D) Therefore, A 180 byte packet is just as likely to be dropped as a 1500 byte packet.
(E) A ptime=20 generates twice the packets as ptime=40, and therefore ptime=20 has twice the exposure to the discards
(F) You can reduce your exposure to discards by reducing the number of packets you have in the queue.
(G) Reduced discards mean better audio quality.
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org <mailto:VoiceOps at voiceops.org> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher E. Brown <chris.brown at acsalaska.net> desk (907) 550-8393 cell (907) 632-8492 IP Engineer - ACS ------------------------------------------------------------------------