|
Voice
on WLAN trials 1: It works!
Aruba
wins - but not everyone entered...

By David Newman,
Network World, 2/07/05
VOIP
should be an easy fit for wireless LANs, but mixing the two
technologies today is difficult. Despite VOIP's low-bandwidth
profile, even a small amount of data traffic on the same network
can lead to seriously degraded audio quality and dropped calls,
even with QoS features enabled.
That's
the major conclusion of our first-ever assessment of VOIP
capability in WLAN systems. Over the course of three months
we tested WLAN switches and access points from Aruba, Chantry
(now acquired by Siemens), Cisco and Colubris. in terms of
audio quality, QoS enforcement, roaming capabilities, and
system features. The Cisco system, is the company's own product,
built around its Catalyst switches, rather than the switch
system it is buying in, with vendor Airespace.
Other
vendors, including Airespace, Meru and Trapeze, declined to
participate.
Among
our major findings:
With
QoS enforcement enabled, the products delivered near-toll-quality
("nearly as good as wired telephones") audio, provided
there is only voice traffic on the network. Unfortunately,
this situation is not likely in practice, as companies move
toward converged voice-data networks.
When
voice traffic had to contend for bandwidth (even with a little
data traffic), dropped calls were common and audio quality
on the remaining calls was poor in many cases - and this was
with QoS enforcement enabled.
With
data traffic present, roaming from one access point to another
took anywhere from 0.5 to 10 seconds - in cases where roaming
succeeded at all. These long delays and dropped calls made
roaming practically impossible with some vendors' gear.
While
some products struggled mightily in our tests, Aruba's A2400
and A800 switches and A61 access points were consistently
strong performers. The Aruba products posted generally excellent
numbers, regardless of how much voice or data traffic was
thrown at them. Aruba's gear just worked, earning it the Clear
Choice Award.
Two issues
confounded other vendors. First, when handling voice and data
traffic on the same network, vendors need to pay attention
to metrics such as delay and jitter rather than forwarding
rates.
Many
vendors are only just beginning to tune their products for
voice/data convergence, even though some have touted that
capability for 18 months or more. However, it's still relatively
early days for VOIP over WLANs. Test tools that accurately
measure these metrics on WLANs are only just beginning to
appear (the VeriWave instruments we used were developed for
this test, and the company launched its Wi-Fi Traffic Generator
at Wi-Fi Planet in November). This test is among the first
to measure audio quality, delay and jitter in a methodical
way.
Second,
the emerging 802.11e standard for QoS on WLANs might bring
some relief. The 802.11e specification wasn't yet ratified
when we began this project, so by definition all QoS methods
were nonstandard. Companies might want to wait until the new
802.11e specification and products based on it are more mature
and fully tested.
How
to measure quality
Our tests sought to answer a simple question: How does a VOIP
over WLAN system sound?
To find
out, we worked with VeriWave, a start-up that makes WLAN test
and measurement equipment. VeriWave developed a new application,
the VOIP over WLAN Analysis Test Suite, especially for our
test.
In addition
to collecting delay and jitter statistics, VeriWave's test
suite and TestPoint hardware let us measure R-value, an ITU
specification (G.107) for determining call quality. R-value
is an objective measurement, computed directly from measurements
of packet loss, jitter and delay. While R-value is objective,
it has a strong correlation to the subjective Mean opinion
score method in ITU standard P.80 (see R-value ratings).
R-value
ratings
An ITU specification that determines call quality, R-value
measures packet loss, jitter and delay.
| R-value |
Mean
opinion score |
User
satisfaction |
| 90
or higher |
4.34
or higher |
All
users very satisfied |
| 80
or higher |
4.03
or higher |
All
users satisfied |
| 70
or higher |
3.60
or higher |
Some
users dissatisfied |
| 60
or higher |
3.10
or higher |
Many
users dissatisfied |
| 50
or higher |
2.58
or higher |
Nearly
all users dissatisfied |
We measured
voice call quality with up to 14 handsets and an H.323 call
server from SpectraLink, a maker of 802.11 handsets. We measured
audio quality with up to seven concurrent calls, and in some
events configured the VeriWave TestPoint boxes to offer background
data. For each system tested, we checked call quality with
QoS disabled, then enabled.
Results
in Brief
Over the next three days, we will feature detailed commentary
on quality of service, roaming and architecture issues. Here
is a brief summary of the results for the four systems we
tested.
Aruba
Networks
A2400, A800 switches, A61 access point . Overall rating 4.58
Cost: $8,780 as tested.
Pros: Outstanding voice prioritisation capabilities; rich
set of QoS and radio frequency management features.
Con: Some call drops in most stressful test case.
Cisco
WLSM Overall rating 3.53
Cost:$51,978 as tested.
Pros: Highly scalable, rich set of routing and switching functions.
Cons: Doesnt protect voice traffic under most stressful
test case; doesn't dynamically adjust to changes in radio
frequency environment; pricey.
Colubris
Networks
CN1250 Overall rating 3.0
Cost: $1,800 as tested; access point, $500.
Pro: Powerful and intuitive user interface.
Con: Limited prioritisation of voice traffic.
Chantry
Networks (now part of Siemens)
BeaconMaster Overall rating 2.4
Cost: $9,180 as tested.
Pro: Supports Open Shortest Path First routing.
Cons: Dropped calls in six- and seven-call cases; poor voice
quality in the presence of data; no contingency for the loss
of power.
Conclusions:
don't mix voice and data unless the system can handle it
It's possible that overall products may improve when more
of them support the 802.11e QoS standard (read more here).
All the vendors said it was early in the evolution of VOIP
over wireless, and our test results show there is certainly
room for improvement. For network managers looking to deploy
VOIP on WLANs in the near future, there are three choices:
- make
very few calls;
- don't
ever send data;
- or
look for equipment - such as Aruba's - that handles time-sensitive
traffic in a timely way.
Tomorrow:
Quality of Service in detail.
Recent
Related Stories:
Connect
Ethernet devices over 802.11a connection
(Network World)
Back
to MobileVillage News Page
This
story and associated images are copyright, 1995-2003 Network
World, Inc.
|