Frank, It gets better (which is sad) in the case of Charter if a customer ordered voice and data they were given a normal Moto SB for Internet data and a separate Arris eMTA (with no CPEs allowed other than the TA and the Ethernet port disabled) for voice. The channels they were using for voice even terminated on a different CMTS altogether. On 3/2/2011 11:26 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. I can't imagine an MSO using separate DS and US QAMs for their eMTAs. Regardless, the customer's Internet would flow over those same QAMs (unless it was a D3 channel-bonding eMTA, and even then I'm not sure if the CMTS could be provisioned to use one QAM for voice and the remaining QAMs for data).
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@ispalliance.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM To: frnkblk@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Frank,
No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and upstream channels which a few operators use for voice traffic only.
On 3/2/2011 12:55 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Scott:
Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, voice signaling, and voice bearer traffic?
Frank
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------