Do you need a voice VLAN?

I’ve had three conversations in the past week or so around whether a voice VLAN is required or recommended for use with Skype for Business. Let’s take a quick look at where the concept of voice VLANs came from, what they can do for you, and whether you need them for your SfB deployment.

The idea of a voice VLAN first came about when the only IP endpoint for you IP PBX was a phone on their desk. The phones generally needed a specific DHCP configuration, and if the phones were in their own VLAN this was easier to do. QoS was implemented as 802.1p at the layer 2 (switch) level, and it was much easier to simply say “this voice VLAN gets a priority of 5”. Some switches would use Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) or Link-Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) to automatically put a device that said it was a phone into the voice VLAN. Much of this early IP telephony was done with voice guys coming from a traditional TDM PBX environment. The world of IP was new to them, so anything that made their lives easier and more automatic was welcomed by not only the voice guys, but also by any IT guys who had to work with them.

Raise your hand if you ever had to explain IP subnetting to your voice guys new to IP, and try to sort out for them why the IP telephone system vendor was blabbering on about Class A subnet masks and VLAN 0. Thankfully for me, my voice guys were smarter than your average bear and quickly picked up some good habits vs the drivel in the phone vendor manuals. (Thanks Brian and Willy!)

The curious thing is that at no point did anything actually require a voice VLAN. They just made life a lot easier and more “automagic”. You could deploy a perfectly good VoIP solution without using voice VLANs.

Fast forward to today, when we talk about Unified Communications instead of IP telephony. We now have soft clients, room systems, and mobile clients. In additional to voice, we have modalities like video, web conferencing and screen sharing, all from the same client. We’ve also got BYOD and Cloud technologies to add excitement to the mix.

Having your desk phones into a voice VLAN doesn’t provide any benefit to you when you’re conferencing from a PC, or watching a PowerPoint on your iPhone in the lunchroom while you wait for the coffee to finish brewing. A good number of your users might not even have a desk phone, opting instead for a headset and soft client.

One scenario where a voice VLAN does make some sense, is when you’re doing a large-scale deployment and the number of phones you are adding outstrips the number of available IP addresses on your existing subnets. In this case, it may make sense to create a new VLAN for the phones. I say “may” as you might also have a requirement to use IP subnets for location determination for emergency calling. Overlaying a single voice VLAN to cover your site may not be suitable – you may have to deploy multiple voice VLANs to provide the location granularity required. It may make more sense to simply further partition your network into general purpose user VLANs.

Do I recommend voice VLANs? No. I think they’re a thing of the past. They add complexity to your network, increase your administration, and affect only a very small number of your UC endpoints. For those endpoints that they do affect, they do not offer any benefits that can be provided via other means, and often those other means will need to be in place for other endpoint types and other modalities.

3 thoughts on “Do you need a voice VLAN?

  1. Hmm, okaaayy.. so people dont need voice vlan because you dont really like that topic? Obviously, if someone is in the process of deciding if voice vlans are needed or not, hope he/she will make the decision based on more professional basis than reading this blogpost. No offense, buit this was taken too lighly here. Or put there a warning: for big, multi-location companies with complex QoS and MPLS connectivity MUST-HAVE-VOICE-VLANs.

    • I’ve articulated a number of reasons in my post as to why voice VLANs aren’t necessary for a Skype for Business environment: complexity, administrative overhead, and a declining percentage of endpoints that fit the classic voice VLAN scenario.

      I would hope that anyone making business decisions would include a number of sources of input in their decision making process. Whether voice VLANs are required or even desired is certainly one of those decisions. I’ve outlined my reasons why I don’t feel they’re required, I’m sure there are others who have posted blogs arguing in favour of them.

      As for “big, multi-location companies with complex QoS and MPLS connectivity”, I disagree with your assertion that voice VLANs are a must-have. Consider the two most popular models of phones for SfB, the LPE (Polycom CX, HP 41xx, Aastra 67xx) and Polycom VVX series. The DSCP value for the LPE phones is easily set via the SfB Control Panel or PowerShell. For the VVX series, DSCP is easily set in the master config file. These very small steps cover all phones organization wide, regardless of the size of the organization. Ensuring the same DSCP settings are in place via VLAN is a lot more work, even with LLDP/CDP “automagic” configuration, and especially if you have a multi-vendor network.

      I’d like to hear how you feel that VLANs, a layer-2 broadcast domain segregation strategy, would impact MPLS or any other WAN technology. Regardless of the method of tagging your traffic, once it’s tagged the QoS configuration on the remainder of your network is identical.

  2. Correct, I have been the voice guy for 15 years and I don’t think the voice vlan brings any advantages as long as you configure correctly the qos in the data vlan

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s