Qos for video Conferencing

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Holleran.Kevin@gmail.com, Aug 10, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I am the IT Admin for a company just getting off the ground. That
    being said, the IT budget is relatively limited (extremely limited
    actually). My superiors are trying to go the cheap route in most
    aspects (as you may have been able to see if you have read any of my
    previous posts). I am looking at a NetGear 48 port switch for just
    under $300 but it is unmanaged and provides no QoS, VLANs, etc. Down
    the road, they want the ability to use video conferencing over the T1.
    Will it be a large problem without being able to implement QoS on the
    switch? Currently, only 35 of the 48 ports will have traffic and it
    will be utilizing connectivity for Internet and to our lone server
    running a whole slew of services included with Microsoft SBS.

    Thanks.
     
    , Aug 10, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi Kevin,

    You may also wish to investigate the extremely active and robust Cisco
    Video over IP Forum.

    Video conferencing and IP/TV:

    http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servl...d=display_messages&mode=new&location=.ee6c82f

    Found at Cisco Systems Forums:

    http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-technical-newsgroups.htm#FORUMS

    Hope this helps.

    Brad Reese
    Global Cisco Systems Pre-Sales Support
    http://www.bradreese.com/contact-us.htm#CISCO
    1293 Hendersonville Road, Suite 17
    Asheville, North Carolina USA 28803
    USA & Canada: 877-549-2680
    International: 828-277-7272
    Fax: 775-254-3558
    AIM: R2MGrant
    BradReese.Com - Cisco Authorized Distributors Worldwide
    http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-distributors.htm
     
    www.BradReese.Com, Aug 10, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. K.J. 44 Guest

    Brad,

    THanks for the response. Would it be possible to look at another topic
    for me? Remote Access at
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.sys.cisco/browse_thread/thread/72834fcd0f070fc1?hl=en

    No one has responded yet and you seem very knowledgeable. I am trying
    to convince my company to purchase a Cisco ASA instead of this cheap
    thing.

    Thanks.

    Kevin

    www.BradReese.Com wrote:
    > Hi Kevin,
    >
    > You may also wish to investigate the extremely active and robust Cisco
    > Video over IP Forum.
    >
    > Video conferencing and IP/TV:
    >
    > http://forum.cisco.com/eforum/servl...d=display_messages&mode=new&location=.ee6c82f
    >
    > Found at Cisco Systems Forums:
    >
    > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-technical-newsgroups.htm#FORUMS
    >
    > Hope this helps.
    >
    > Brad Reese
    > Global Cisco Systems Pre-Sales Support
    > http://www.bradreese.com/contact-us.htm#CISCO
    > 1293 Hendersonville Road, Suite 17
    > Asheville, North Carolina USA 28803
    > USA & Canada: 877-549-2680
    > International: 828-277-7272
    > Fax: 775-254-3558
    > AIM: R2MGrant
    > BradReese.Com - Cisco Authorized Distributors Worldwide
    > http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-distributors.htm
     
    K.J. 44, Aug 10, 2006
    #3
  4. Kevin,

    You're welcome, pleasure to be of assistance.

    Please call End-User Cisco Pre-Sales Support Toll Free:

    877-235-5477

    or Email:

    sales_enquiry *at* external.cisco.com

    Cisco is very good at this.

    Sincerely,

    Brad Reese
    Cisco TAC Contacts Worldwide
    http://www.bradreese.com/cisco-tac-contacts-worldwide.htm
     
    www.BradReese.Com, Aug 10, 2006
    #4
  5. Rob Guest

    Is your T1 a private T1 (Frame, P-to-P, MPLS) to another branch? What
    are the routers on both sides?

    For a small company, I have found that QoS on the switch is optional
    but QoS on the router is mandatory. You may be able to live without
    it, depending on your traffic flow.



    On 10 Aug 2006 06:39:15 -0700, ""
    <> wrote:

    >I am the IT Admin for a company just getting off the ground. That
    >being said, the IT budget is relatively limited (extremely limited
    >actually). My superiors are trying to go the cheap route in most
    >aspects (as you may have been able to see if you have read any of my
    >previous posts). I am looking at a NetGear 48 port switch for just
    >under $300 but it is unmanaged and provides no QoS, VLANs, etc. Down
    >the road, they want the ability to use video conferencing over the T1.
    >Will it be a large problem without being able to implement QoS on the
    >switch? Currently, only 35 of the 48 ports will have traffic and it
    >will be utilizing connectivity for Internet and to our lone server
    >running a whole slew of services included with Microsoft SBS.
    >
    >Thanks.
     
    Rob, Aug 11, 2006
    #5
  6. K.J. 44 Guest

    Rob,

    Thanks for your response. Our T1 is simply an Internet T1 as we are
    the only branch. However, we have outsourced a large ecommerce project
    to three seperate companies and meet with them frequently via
    conference calls. My thinking was at this time with a 48 port switch
    with how small we are there will be no congestion in the switch at this
    time. The router is QoS capable.

    Thanks for your response.


    Rob wrote:
    > Is your T1 a private T1 (Frame, P-to-P, MPLS) to another branch? What
    > are the routers on both sides?
    >
    > For a small company, I have found that QoS on the switch is optional
    > but QoS on the router is mandatory. You may be able to live without
    > it, depending on your traffic flow.
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10 Aug 2006 06:39:15 -0700, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I am the IT Admin for a company just getting off the ground. That
    > >being said, the IT budget is relatively limited (extremely limited
    > >actually). My superiors are trying to go the cheap route in most
    > >aspects (as you may have been able to see if you have read any of my
    > >previous posts). I am looking at a NetGear 48 port switch for just
    > >under $300 but it is unmanaged and provides no QoS, VLANs, etc. Down
    > >the road, they want the ability to use video conferencing over the T1.
    > >Will it be a large problem without being able to implement QoS on the
    > >switch? Currently, only 35 of the 48 ports will have traffic and it
    > >will be utilizing connectivity for Internet and to our lone server
    > >running a whole slew of services included with Microsoft SBS.
    > >
    > >Thanks.
     
    K.J. 44, Aug 11, 2006
    #6
  7. smoove Guest

    I am running Sprint MPLS


    "Rob" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Is your T1 a private T1 (Frame, P-to-P, MPLS) to another branch? What
    > are the routers on both sides?
    >
    > For a small company, I have found that QoS on the switch is optional
    > but QoS on the router is mandatory. You may be able to live without
    > it, depending on your traffic flow.
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10 Aug 2006 06:39:15 -0700, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am the IT Admin for a company just getting off the ground. That
    >>being said, the IT budget is relatively limited (extremely limited
    >>actually). My superiors are trying to go the cheap route in most
    >>aspects (as you may have been able to see if you have read any of my
    >>previous posts). I am looking at a NetGear 48 port switch for just
    >>under $300 but it is unmanaged and provides no QoS, VLANs, etc. Down
    >>the road, they want the ability to use video conferencing over the T1.
    >>Will it be a large problem without being able to implement QoS on the
    >>switch? Currently, only 35 of the 48 ports will have traffic and it
    >>will be utilizing connectivity for Internet and to our lone server
    >>running a whole slew of services included with Microsoft SBS.
    >>
    >>Thanks.

    >
     
    smoove, Aug 11, 2006
    #7
  8. Sir Woogie Guest

    wrote:
    > I am the IT Admin for a company just getting off the ground. That
    > being said, the IT budget is relatively limited (extremely limited
    > actually). My superiors are trying to go the cheap route in most
    > aspects (as you may have been able to see if you have read any of my
    > previous posts). I am looking at a NetGear 48 port switch for just
    > under $300 but it is unmanaged and provides no QoS, VLANs, etc. Down
    > the road, they want the ability to use video conferencing over the T1.
    > Will it be a large problem without being able to implement QoS on the
    > switch? Currently, only 35 of the 48 ports will have traffic and it
    > will be utilizing connectivity for Internet and to our lone server
    > running a whole slew of services included with Microsoft SBS.


    This isn't really enough information overall. Your limiting factor in
    bandwidth is going to be the T1. I'm assuming this 48 port is
    10/100Mbps based on the price. Think of it this way... You have 1.5
    Mbit T1 to the Internet. You have 100Mbps dedicated switching on each
    port internal. If you're talking to people over the T1, where do you
    think this bottleneck is going to occur first? :)
     
    Sir Woogie, Aug 12, 2006
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matthew Melbourne

    IP-IP Gateway for Video Conferencing

    Matthew Melbourne, Oct 15, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    483
    Matthew Melbourne
    Oct 15, 2005
  2. rsjimmy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    8,058
    rsjimmy
    Mar 7, 2006
  3. PWB

    Web-Camera/Video Conferencing

    PWB, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    484
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    651
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    997
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page