Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control.
If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Click for Router Charts

Router Ranker

Click for Router Ranker

NAS Charts

Click for NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

Click for NAS Ranker

More Tools

Click for More Tools

QoS Testing

Revised 6/25/2005

NOTE!NOTE: The original test methodology used TestYourVoip.com's TestMyVoIP feature. This is browser-based Java applet that tests both send and receive paths between the computer the applet runs on and a selection of test endpoints located around the world.

Shortly after the review was published, Sipura pointed out that this was not a correct test of the SPA-2100's QoS features because it used data and simulated VoIP traffic that both originated from the product's LAN port. Sipura noted that the 2100 will only prioritize the VoIP traffic originating on the SPA-2100 FXS (phone / fax) ports.

The test described below uses a corrected, valid method using data originating from the LAN port and actual voice from a telephone connected to an FXS port. I apologize to Sipura and our readers for the error.

One of the reasons I wanted to test the 2100 instead of one of Sipura's non-routing models was to check out its QoS features. I used the "Golden Phone" feature of Brix Networks' TestYourVoip.com as my test tool. The "Golden Phone" allows you to make an actual VoIP call to a test point (I used the one in Boston), talk for about 15 seconds and get a MOS (Mean Opinion Score) number for the voice quality measured from your phone to the test point. The test results returned also include packet loss, discards, latency and Codec-related errors.

I ran four "Golden Phone" tests to see how the 2100's QoS capability fared:

  • with no other apps running on my computer and QoS disabled
  • with a long FTP upload running and QoS disabled
  • with a long FTP upload running and QoS set to TBF (Token Bucket Filter)
  • with a long FTP upload running and QoS set to CBQ (Class Based Queueing)
  No apps/ no QoS FTP up / no Qos FTP up / TBF QoS FTP up / CBQ QoS
MOS
4.4 / 5.0
(Best with
G.711
is 4.4)
 
Degradation
Sources
Codec 0.60 100.0%
Latency 0.00 0.0%
Packet
Discards
0.00 0.0%
Packet
Loss
0.00 0.0%
3.4 / 5.0
(Best with
G.711
is 4.4)
 
Degradation
Sources
Codec 0.60 37.5%
Latency 0.67 41.7%
Packet
Discards
0.33 20.8%
Packet
Loss
0.00 0.0%
4.3 / 5.0
(Best with
G.711
is 4.4)
 
Degradation
Sources
Codec 0.60 85.7%
Latency 0.10 14.3%
Packet
Discards
0.00 0.0%
Packet
Loss
0.00 0.0%
3.7 / 5.0
(Best with
G.711
is 4.4)
 
Degradation
Sources
Codec 0.60 46.2%
Latency 0.00 0.0%
Packet
Discards
0.70 53.8%
Packet
Loss
0.00 0.0%
Codec G.711 (PCM at
64kbps, 
20ms RTP payload,
80kbps IP BW)
G.711 (PCM at
64kbps, 
20ms RTP payload,
80kbps IP BW)
G.711 (PCM at
64kbps, 
20ms RTP payload,
80kbps IP BW)
G.711 (PCM at
64kbps, 
20ms RTP payload,
80kbps IP BW)
Round-Trip
Latency
11 ms 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms
Packet Discards 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 2.1%
Packet Loss 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Loss Periods
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 0 ms
Max: 0 ms
No Loss
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 0 ms
Max: 0 ms
No Loss
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 0 ms
Max: 0 ms
No Loss
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 0 ms
Max: 0 ms
No Loss
Jitter
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 1 ms
Max: 2 ms
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 27 ms
Max: 166 ms
Min: 4 ms
Avg: 27 ms
Max: 160 ms
Min: 0 ms
Avg: 3 ms
Max: 58 ms
Table 2: QoS Test Results

Table 2 summarizes the results from all four tests.

You can see that with the FTP upload, latency, packet discards and jitter all increase. Enabling TBF-based QoS (Sipura's recommendation), essentially eliminates packet loss, but doesn't do much for jitter. On the other hand, switching to CBQ-based QoS appears to increase packet discards, but significantly lower jitter.

To put all the above results into perspective, note that the 3.4 MOS obtained with no QoS and FTP running would result in noticeable degradation and a "Many users dissatisfied" rating according to the table toward the bottom of this page. That table also points out that the 4.3 score obtained with TBF-based QoS enabled falls into the "Very satisfied" classification and is 0.1 point shy of the 4.4 perfect score possible when using a G.711 codec.

The bottom line is that it looks like the recommended TBF-based QoS did the trick of restoring near-perfect call quality with simultaneous continuous uplink data traffic.

Wi-Fi System Tools
Check out our Wi-Fi System Charts, Ranker and Finder!

Support Us!

If you like what we do and want to thank us, just buy something on Amazon. We'll get a small commission on anything you buy. Thanks!

Over In The Forums

Is there a way to block all DNS on port 53 except for a specified device? I looked at SkyNET and the Asus WebUI and didn't see anything that really fi...
Asuswrt-Merlin 384.19 beta is now available (except for the RT-AX56U which won't be available for this release, due to outdated GPL code).The main cha...
New site with updated guide After many requests, I made this tutorial for pyload entware version, works on the following routers: RT-AC66U/R, R...
I currently have a wd my cloud but the remote access required me to port trigger to redirect the default ports form 80 and 443 in order for it to work...
New firmware was just released for the GT-AC5300 this morning EST, Aug 4th, 2020. Haven't checked the release notes yet. It's available via the admin ...

Don't Miss These

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3