Hi Chris:

Thanks for your reply.

Rather then trying to use VoIP ports to prioritize my VoIP phone data, I
just prioritized on the static IP address of my ATA.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Liljenstolpe [mailto:cdl at asgaard dot org] 
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:59 PM
To: Bob Young
Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: VoIP voice quality surprise

Bob,

	This only affects the link between the switch and the VoIP adapter  
(it means that the VoIP adapter-switch link can't have traffic going  
both ways (tx and rx) at the same time).  It is relevant only to the  
switch-ATA link.  Any other system on the Ethernet (including your  
m0n0wall) will not even know that state (nor care - the switch takes  
care of the buffering).

	Chris

P.S.  How are you identifying the inbound VoIP rule for the bandwidth  
shaper?  Remember, the ATA MAY use a random port to source the  
traffic (therefore, the inbound traffic MAY be to a random port).  It  
would be best to use some other identifier (like source address from  
your VoIP provider).

	Chris

On 06 Aug 2006, at 05.35 , Bob Young wrote:

> Hello all:
>
>
> I may have figured out why I can't do BW limiting of my incoming  
> VoIP data.
> Please tell me if this seems reasonable.
>
> I happened to glance over at my switch, and noticed that only one  
> LED was
> lit up for my phone adapter, but three LEDs were lit up for my two
> computers. So looked closer at the LED designations.
>
> The LEDs indicated that my two computers are on full duplex,  
> however my
> phone adapter is the only one operating at half-duplex.
>
> Monowall must be expecting computer systems to be operating at full  
> duplex
> in order for Monowall to have outgoing and incoming BW control.
>
> Do you think that's the reason I can't throttle down my incoming BW  
> to my
> phone adapter? I sure hope it is, cause then I'll be able to sleep at
> night...lol.
>