Wow, I was not aware of that, what a management and maintenance nightmare. Do they still do this?
Frank -----Original Message----- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:49 AM To: frnk...@iname.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users? 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:khe...@ispalliance.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM > To: frnk...@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 --------------------------------
