Re: MultiTech VOIP behind ISA

Hi Tim,

This sounds very interesting. Could you do a rough diagram on the back
of a cocktail napkin, scan it, and send it to me?

Thanks!

Tom
www.isaserver.org/shinder


-----Original Message-----
From: Deus, Attonbitus [mailto:Thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:55 AM
To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
Subject: [isalist] Re: MultiTech VOIP behind ISA

http://www.ISAserver.org



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 08:30 AM 6/14/2002, you wrote:

>" My initial concern with such a configuration was the crypto latency,
>but this has been an
>issue at all."
>So it wasn't issue at all? can u give me any number ? was it ~300ms or
>no measurable latency at all?

Actually, my goal for any VoIP traffic is to stay under 250ms.  Anything

buffered beyond that has too much of a noticeable delay, and people
start 
talking over themselves and repeating stuff...

Routing down the encrypted tunnel, in the case of the ISA-to-ISA VPN's,
did 
not introduce any additional latency that I could identify.  Tests
between 
encrypted and non-encrypted channels yielded about the same 
variations.   To be honest, I was really quite surprised.  As an early 
adopter of Voice over Frame technology, I did notice an identifiable 
overhead when 3DES crypto-maps were applied to my Cisco voice PVC's; to
the 
point that we decided to drop back to 40bit on the voice channels.

When we moved to VoIP, I was sure it would be an issue; however, we have

had really good luck so far (knock on wood).

AD





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBPQoR2IhsmyD15h5gEQJUVQCg8pNh1R7QI7N9XyUmRi9F3EKbX6YAoJAz
eCgMwpAMMa59rSOTBA1HJRcw
=u5Dj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
tshinder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

Other related posts: