[cisco-voip] Cisco Unified PhoneProxy+7970 vs. 871 route+7970 rvs. Cisco VPN Client+IP Communicator

[Linsemier, Matthew]

I would point out that QoS isn't all about matching ISP and Edge
markings being in sync.  We currently utilize a 871/877 solution and
mark and shape at the ISP edge and client edge.  If there is no QoS
marking and shaping going on at all, PhoneProxy traffic is not being
prioritized at the edge, so someone on the client side starting a
BitTorrent download or downloading a large e-mail attachment can (and
will, we have seen it) cause jitter and latency if not prioritized
correctly.  With a 871/877 you can control the traffic behind the exit
point to the ISP and choose what leaves first and remark non-essential
traffic.

Just my two cents. 

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Matt Slaga (US)
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 11:37 AM
To: Robert Kulagowski; Louis Marascio (lmarasci)
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Unified PhoneProxy+7970 vs. 871
route+7970 rvs. Cisco VPN Client+IP Communicator

The only benefit you may gain is if the ISP happens to be the same as
the corporate office ISP and they offer some type of SLA on QoS.  The
871 could appropriately mark the traffic to ISP required settings.
Otherwise, you are increasing overhead on the voice traffic.  Based
solely on voice quality and not on end-user computer needs, I would pick
PhoneProxy over a VPN tunnel anyday.

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Robert
Kulagowski
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:57 AM
To: Louis Marascio (lmarasci)
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Cisco Unified PhoneProxy+7970 vs. 871
route+7970 r vs. Cisco VPN Client+IP Communicator

> Is it any more "efficient", packet-wise or whatever, than a full-blown
> VPN tunnel configuration that you'd get with a 871?

Thanks for the information on the encryption.  How about the above?  I'm

just trying to determine whether there would be anything gained and if 
it's possible that the user experience using the phone proxy vs. a full 
VPN tunnel would be worthwhile.

I thought that reducing CPU on the laptop might be a plus, but if we're 
encrypting voice packets then there's no gain there.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
This communication and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may
be protected by one or more legal privileges. It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee identified above. If you
are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying
or distribution of this communication is UNAUTHORIZED. Neither
this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor
anything else in this message is intended to constitute an
electronic signature unless a specific statement to the
contrary is included in this message. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately contact me and delete
this communication from your computer. Thank you.