My company is currently using a BRI ISDN(bonding at 128K) for videoconferencing- it has been spotty at best and the manufacturer is recommending upping the bandwidth to a fractional T1 at 384K. Does that sound like overkill? Also has anyone used videoconferencing on a VPN? Thanks
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations wOOdy-Soft on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Video conferencing bandwidth ques and VPN
- Thread starter phoneguru
- Start date
If you are going to use a VPN for video-conferencing you will need a lot more bandwidth than that!
I have tried 500Kbps, with very low latency and Packetshaper prioritisation - still unuseably poor. OK (just) on 2Mbps with QoS shaping, if latency is low enough - and no jitter!
Basically, IP Video-conferencing is OK on a LAN (if you have plenty of spare bandwidth - but then LAN bandwidth is cheap). For site-to-site, I'm afraid you're still stuck with ISDN for the time being (unless you can afford 2M site-to-site leased-lines or can use line-of sight laser or radio links).
256K (i.e. 2 ISDN2 lines)is a *lot* better than 128K. 384 is better again, but not as much better - diminishing returns.
I have tried 500Kbps, with very low latency and Packetshaper prioritisation - still unuseably poor. OK (just) on 2Mbps with QoS shaping, if latency is low enough - and no jitter!
Basically, IP Video-conferencing is OK on a LAN (if you have plenty of spare bandwidth - but then LAN bandwidth is cheap). For site-to-site, I'm afraid you're still stuck with ISDN for the time being (unless you can afford 2M site-to-site leased-lines or can use line-of sight laser or radio links).
256K (i.e. 2 ISDN2 lines)is a *lot* better than 128K. 384 is better again, but not as much better - diminishing returns.
kcbell
IS-IT--Management
- Dec 27, 2001
- 275
phoneguru:
If you are using ISDN(Bri) bonding, are you using (3) ISDN Bri to make it 384K? I found this way to do video is ok before Internet because there is no other way to do it. A fraction of T1(384) will give you better setup time and may be better video. Either way you are paying big $$$ for the call.
My company stopped using ISDN six months ago. We get a full T1 Internet line from Verizon and we use this for video plus some data. For $900 a month, we could have three 24x7 384K video conference with our counterpart overseas in Asia and pay $0 for usage. Since the T1 is used for data too, a VPN tunnel is already in place. The video is passing thru the VPN tunnel. We found no problems at all. The latency is around 200ms. I found the overhead of VPN is no issue.
I don't know how Krisweir got
"For site-to-site, I'm afraid you're still stuck with ISDN for the time being (unless you can afford 2M site-to-site leased-lines or can use line-of sight laser or radio links)." We are talking about office-to-office videoconferencing not Monday Night Football. 384K will give you a meaningful conference.
Just this year, we bought two Polycom ViewStation H.323 because it works so well over the T1 Internet Service. We had many occasion two video calls going at the same time and still used less than 55% of the total bandwidth.
Hope this help!
If you are using ISDN(Bri) bonding, are you using (3) ISDN Bri to make it 384K? I found this way to do video is ok before Internet because there is no other way to do it. A fraction of T1(384) will give you better setup time and may be better video. Either way you are paying big $$$ for the call.
My company stopped using ISDN six months ago. We get a full T1 Internet line from Verizon and we use this for video plus some data. For $900 a month, we could have three 24x7 384K video conference with our counterpart overseas in Asia and pay $0 for usage. Since the T1 is used for data too, a VPN tunnel is already in place. The video is passing thru the VPN tunnel. We found no problems at all. The latency is around 200ms. I found the overhead of VPN is no issue.
I don't know how Krisweir got
"For site-to-site, I'm afraid you're still stuck with ISDN for the time being (unless you can afford 2M site-to-site leased-lines or can use line-of sight laser or radio links)." We are talking about office-to-office videoconferencing not Monday Night Football. 384K will give you a meaningful conference.
Just this year, we bought two Polycom ViewStation H.323 because it works so well over the T1 Internet Service. We had many occasion two video calls going at the same time and still used less than 55% of the total bandwidth.
Hope this help!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question