RE: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 7:59 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors ) [ SNIP ] But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then it could remember the last GPS detectable location and use that when it connects to the net again. May as well implant an RFID and a Emergency button on every citizen. A more feasable solution might be to integrate SS7 into the head-end and pass to the proper PSAP like we do now based on LIDB, CNAM, etc. This would continue the legacy transmission of subscriber data to assist emerg. services in locating you. Prior to E911 you had to identify yourself and your location though. It's nice to have intelligent network features, isn't it? -M
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:54:40PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it. i, as a user, only use the PSTN for its reach, not any of its differing fundamental engineering assumptions, most of which i'd challenge if i cared, but i don't care. internet-as-disintermediator means clearchannel can't prevent podcasting, newspapers can't prevent online auctions and online news websites, politicians can't prevent bloggers, and sears can't prevent amazon... but as long as we have the FCC and NANP and an investment-protection policy, PSTN *can* prevent voip, and they'll use selective enforcement of 911 as one of the tools to do so. which is why i predict that we'll see more computers doing voice, using domain names rather than phone numbers for rendezvous. And yet (this is drifting off topic from Internetworking into the larger realm of networking as a whole; feel free to tune out, folks), I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing. Subsidy business models have long been the means by which those functions of the commercial telecommunications industry which were not direct retail items to end users were funded, and if all that revenue is siphoned off, then those -- important and necessary -- functions will have to be paid for by *someone*. The analogy I usually use here is to cheaper Canadian drugs. Yeah, they're cheaper. But they wouldn't stay that way long if a statistically significant fraction of the US started bying their drugs from Canadian sources, and it wouldn't have anything to do with regulations, at all. The declining subsidy from consumer snapshot film to the other parts of the film photographic industry as digital cameras take over is another good one. Short version is: not all the things an industry does are immediately obvious, especially to civilians, and it's good to put some thought into what they are before blindly encouraging them to go out of business. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] because integrated or pci audio are often plagued by internal electrical noise. USB largely avoids this by doing all the conversion externally and largely isolated. Like that's going to matter for a monaural signal that's sampled at 8kHz with 13 bits of resolution before compression. Don't forget to use the green markers on the X-Lite installation CD and hook it all up with oxygen-free cable. -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for full key
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 4/1/2005 12:34 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: on the other hand I disagree with your example that the US is inventing everything, Nope, didn't say that either. Also, look at where implementation of high-speed local access is being done, it's not in the US anyway. Also a reflection of culture. We aren't high-density as in Korea, and we don't have massive natural resource and taxation revenues to afford fiber drops into every isolated corner of a single state as in Norway, and so forth. More to the point, we're not going to move into single-room dwellings or invert our economy (both of which are suggested from time to time--the koreans/norwegians can do it, so can we...). Instead some fool will develop (and deploy) unproven technologies that may or may not eventually solve our problem, at great pain and expense to us all. Even more to the point, of course, we're glad that others are successfully using (and will be using) the technologies that work out in spite of our apparent foolishness in pursuing them. But really, all I'm saying here is that nationalizing and/or mandating technology may work great elsewhere (and even in some areas here) but generally speaking its not in our culture and the suggestion falls flat. I'm not bragging, I'm explaining why. If the PTTs can sit on their access networks without regulation, there will be no competition in the access, and then the market comes to a standstill because building new access networks costs an arm and a leg, especially if right-of-way is hard to come by and you have to negotiate with every land-owner on the way. It's in everybody's interest to reduce capitalization requirements and increase access. See voluntary tower-sharing agreements, for example. http://wethersfieldct.com/B+C/PZC_05-18-2004.html and start reading at 'tower sharing'; I'd prefer to see this made easier, certainly. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. this isn't a violation of the law as long as there's a warning labelabout it. but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of1000 DIDs end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a built-in 911 dialplan that makes the phone transmit your coordinates along with the emergency call? That solves the campus problem. And since VoIP phones are nearly as portable as cellphones, this makes good sense. If you take your VoIP phone to grandma's house at Thanksgiving, plug into her broadband router and need to call for assistance, it would just work. Of course there is the little matter of a national E-911 center to accept the calls, decode the GPS info, and dispatch the call correctly... --Michael Dillon
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Fri 01 Apr 2005, 13:33 CEST]: Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a Because GPS doesn't work indoors. -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't speak for Paul, but, I propose that the government stop telling me what I do or don't need, and what risks are or are not acceptable for my family and allow me to make those choices for myself. This belief == libertarianism, no? I take it you'd rather inspect your own food processing plants, and not have a licensing system in place for elctrical work (et. al.)? Personally, I'm quite glad for government regulations regarding food safety, home inspection, and lots of other things which are safety related. There are other restrictions which I'm not thrilled about, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason (which does not inherently boil down to a libertarian argument) to stop requiring that anything which defines itself as a phone-based voice service should have a working 911 connection. The VoIP companies currently call themselves phone companies, and by doing so, IMO, they open themselves to this level of regulation. If I want 911 service, then, I should subscribe to at least one telephony service which provides it, and, which charges me for it. If I am willing to risk life without reliable 911 service, then, that should be my choice, and, I should be able to choose voice carriers which do not provide 911 service and I should not have to pay for it. Should you be able to subscribe to the fire department? How about the police? That's how it used to be, but that model didn't work nearly as well as universal coverage paid by taxes does. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a Because GPS doesn't work indoors. GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through solid materials like building walls. But people are already working on more sensitive receivers. But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then it could remember the last GPS detectable location and use that when it connects to the net again. --Michael Dillon P.S. assuming that phones like this come on the market, we might see the following exchange on a web forum somewhere... Q. Hi. My ACME VoIP Phone is complaining that it can't provide E-911 service. I reset it, pulled the plug, but nothing helps. A. Do you live in an apartment building? Q. Yeah, why? What difference does that make? A. Trust me. Unplug the phone, take it outside and walk to the nearest major intersection. Cross all 4 streets at the intersection, walking around until you get back to where you first arrived at the intersection. Then go home, plug in your ACME VoIP Phone and try again. Q. WOW! It worked! I can't believe it. Now I have a new problem. I told my friends how I fixed the phone and now they all think I'm smoking strange substances. A. Well, you win some, and you lose some. :-)
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Fri 01 Apr 2005, 14:57 CEST]: Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a Because GPS doesn't work indoors. GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through solid materials like building walls. But people are already working on more sensitive receivers. But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then it could remember the last GPS detectable location and use that when it connects to the net again. Sure, why not put in a GSM receiver as well? You don't even need a subscription or even a SIM card to make emergency calls. Or what about a boiler plate, so your phone can make you a nice cup of tea? That'd be useful, not having to get up in the middle of a conversation anymore to get fresh tea. -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors ) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 13:58:39 +0100 Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a Because GPS doesn't work indoors. GPS works anywhere where the satellite signals can be detected. http://www.u-blox.com/technology/supersense.html Obviously, signals get weaker when they have to pass through solid materials like building walls. But people are already working on more sensitive receivers. But, leaving that aside, if the IP phone has a battery inside it and if it can record previous GPS locations and if you move the phone outside to a new location, then it could remember the last GPS detectable location and use that when it connects to the net again. There's a reason these kinds of capabilities aren't in VoIP phones. That reason is *money*. GPS capability in the handset would raise the cost of low-end VoIP handsets by an order of magnitude, at least. Using battery-power for the GPS while not plugged into the line is a laugh. Think about what happens when the batteries run down, *before* the phone reaches it's final destination. Suppose it's in an airplane at the time. The 911 call shows a location of 37,000 ft _above_ the middle of Lake Michigan. Care to imagine the lawsuit when somebody *dies*, when 'emergency responce' didn't get there in time, _because_ the phone lied about where it was at? Note: this is all getting _fair_ afield from the chartered NANOG subject matter. I'll shut up.
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to have a telephone, to have that telephone in the kitchen or other main room of the home, and to be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, it'll be with vengeance. So given that you see this as likely, and by your tone, I'm guessing that you're not in favor of this outcome, what do you propose? i propose that if a gov't is going to mandate something, that they be required to ensure competition for the revenue thus enabled, or they be required to provide it in a not-for-profit manner (like water and sewage). again-- i like 911 and i love my local fire department. what i do not love is protectionism for capital inertia, in the form of selectively enforced regulations (like 911). one of the reasons i like open source so much is that people will only run BIND9 (et al) if they think it's the best way to solve their problem, and one of the alternatives that's always available is code fork!. this tends to make for responsiveness on the part of vendors. and while i've been heard to quibble about some of the restrictive aspects of GPL (vs BSD), the same is true of emacs, gcc, linux, freebsd, and everything else i use. i want that kind of alternative available for my voice communications or indeed anything i spend money on. 911 is to POTS as MSIE is to Windows-- it helps put the lock in lock-in. -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Personally, I'm quite glad for government regulations regarding food safety, home inspection, and lots of other things which are safety related. There are other restrictions which I'm not thrilled about, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason (which does not inherently boil down to a libertarian argument) to stop requiring that anything which defines itself as a phone-based voice service should have a working 911 connection. The VoIP companies currently call themselves phone companies, and by doing so, IMO, they open themselves to this level of regulation. If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... Adi
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Adi Linden wrote: If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... At this point, I think it's simply an argument over the interpretation of 'signalling technology'. - billn
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Adi Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... I agree - the former is exactly the direction I think we should go. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't we have VoIP phones with built-in GPS receivers and a built-in 911 dialplan that makes the phone transmit your coordinates along with the emergency call? are you serious? if you are, why don't you ask for a pony while you're at it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
Actually, that's an interesting point... What if SIP based phones could know do the following: 1. If they know where they are, include: X-Lat: N/S dd:mm:ss.sss X-Lon: E/W ddd:mm:ss.sss In the SIP headers. 2. If they don't know where they are, include: X-Location: unknown 3. 911 is automatically mapped to: SIP://e911.emergency.int E911.emergency.int, would be resolved by ANYCAST DNS servers operated by 911 centers. Ideally, each VOIP capable 911 call center would operate one of these. It would return the IP address of that 911 call center's SIP proxy. Sure, it's not perfect, but, your topologically closest 911 call center is not unlikely to be at least somewhat geographically closest as well. This provides at least as good a service as cell phones without GPSs, and, where possible, as good as cell phones with GPSs. Just random thoughts on the subject. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpDExKi1dv32.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:58:50PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Given that, certainly some networks might choose to NOT transport VOIP or HTTP or BitTorennt across their networks. There are market reasons why this will, or could, eventually force them to re-evaluate their practices or face the consequences. I don't find it shocking at all that ISP-Y decides to block VOIP, especially if they have their own VOIP service offering. It might not be the BEST plan in the long run for them, but certainly it makes some sense to them... Just don't use their network(s), and complain to their support organization(s) about the failures on their networks. I think the underlying issue here is the same one that it is when Walmart sells a sanitized version of a song with Bad Words in it: They don't *tell you* about it. Disclosure is the real issue. People tend to make assumptions about what an Internet connection can do... some of which are compatible with the engineering and business models of various carriers, and some of which aren't. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 09:45:42AM -0800, David Barak wrote: we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. (dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!) because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from voice. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be damn the 911, full steam ahead. That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). An excellent distinction, and one that the government had to deal with many years ago... when they discovered that ATT had *many* facets, and that breaking up the functions they used to use Ma Bell for required *figuring out what those functions were*. Many of them had cropped up by accretion, along the way. To a first approximation, for example, Bell Labs was America's national research laboratory, and I'm sure the country hasn't entirely benefitted from what *they've* had to go through. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:25:27AM -0800, David Barak wrote: most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? Would *you* want to be the person who got a dressing down from the local fire chief because several of your phones had skip-py 1 keys, people trying to dial 9-1-800-555-1212 kept dialling 911 instead? There are *many* possible failure modes involving 911: http://www.911dispatch.com/911_file/911_misdials.html And for background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1 It's not as simple as it looks, off topic though it probably is. Cheers, -- jr 'learning opportunity' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:30:19AM -0800, Bill Nash wrote: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Adi Linden wrote: If VoIP companies are regulated into providing 911 service, minimum availability standards, etc is one thing. Forcing anyone that might be transporting VoIP into becoming a Telco is quite another... At this point, I think it's simply an argument over the interpretation of 'signalling technology'. Nope, it's an argument over the *implementation* of 'signallaling technology'. Do *you* want to build your network to 5-nines? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:48:08PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of 1000 DIDs end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? They're there, actually. http://www.qwest.com/pcat/large_business/product/1,1016,989_4_25,00.html http://www.xo.com/products/smallgrowing/voice/local/psali/ et al. i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, and that if old money telcos can't compete without asset protection, they should file for chapter 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling these things phone and then circling their wagons around the NANP. but that's not going to happen, so i predict that the internet will do what it always does-- work around the problem. so, domain names and personal computers rather than phone numbers and things-that-look-like-phones. i've got nothing against 911, and i love my local fire dept. Glad to hear it. But it's not as easy as all that. There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it. if there are people out there who want cell-quality voice, are willing to live without 911, but want to make multiple calls at once with flat rate billing, they should be able to choose VoIP (or VoPI, i guess). however, the FCC seems to have decided that this would be $bad, which i guess from the point of view of old money telcos and capital inertia, it indeed is. I'm not sure that one assumption supports the other, but... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: There are, as I implied in another post, many unobvious end-to-end systemic characteristics that make the PSTN the PSTN that Internet Telephony isn't going to be able to fulfill for some time, if ever, due to the differing fundamental engineering assumptions that underly it. i, as a user, only use the PSTN for its reach, not any of its differing fundamental engineering assumptions, most of which i'd challenge if i cared, but i don't care. internet-as-disintermediator means clearchannel can't prevent podcasting, newspapers can't prevent online auctions and online news websites, politicians can't prevent bloggers, and sears can't prevent amazon... but as long as we have the FCC and NANP and an investment-protection policy, PSTN *can* prevent voip, and they'll use selective enforcement of 911 as one of the tools to do so. which is why i predict that we'll see more computers doing voice, using domain names rather than phone numbers for rendezvous. (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 now. yay!) -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote: (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 now. yay!) if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? because integrated or pci audio are often plagued by internal electrical noise. USB largely avoids this by doing all the conversion externally and largely isolated. -Dan
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
(speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 now. yay!) if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? randy
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
USB is better because almost every computer today has USB ports. Not all of them have headset/mic jacks. My personal favorite is the Telex H551 implemented as a USB adapter which provides standard headset/mic jacks. Owen --On Friday, April 1, 2005 2:00 PM -0800 Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (speaking of amazon, i found that usb headsets are down to ~$34.94 now. yay!) if you mean the logitech 980130-0403, $32 at newegg why is usb better than the headset/mic jacks? randy -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpjfW8pCsQAe.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Mauch Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:06 PM To: Paul Vixie Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and leave space for my UDP packet streams. I think one of the major problems is that very few people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular settings on their systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not designed for high pps rates.. That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet size curve and the latency curve? I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and intervleaving? I'm outside of that very few people, but I could imagine wanting dynamic control--one packet size (latency) for a certain calling plan (calls within the LAN, maybe even to anywhere on my network if I control end-to-end QoS, and local calls) but another for long distance. - jared Lee
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 08:19:40PM -0700, John Osmon wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:05:44PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: [...] I think one of the major problems is that very few people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular settings on their systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not designed for high pps rates.. So, how are the WISP folk dealing with VOIP traffic as it becomes a larger piece of their customer's traffic? Does anyone have a way to force a given VOIP endpoint to use larger data frames? Or are 2610(config-dial-peer)#codec g711ulaw ? bytes Specify number of voice data bytes per frame cr 2610(config-dial-peer)#codec g729r8 bytes ? Each codec sample produces 10 bytes of voice payload. Valid sizes are: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240. My Hitachi WIP-5000 also lets me set this locally on the handset but it uses the delay between packets instead of size.. The Cisco ata-186 can set this as well: # - # Parameter: NumTxFrames # Access Code: 35 # Value Type: Integer (1 - 6) # # Description: Transmit frames per packet. # # The frame size for each G.711 and G.729 data packet is 10 ms. # The frame size for each G.723 data packet is 30 ms. # #Examples: To obtain 60 ms of G.723 audio, set the value to 2 (=60/30). # To obtain 120 ms of G.723 audio, set the value to 4 (=120/30). # To obtain 20 ms of G.711 audio, set the value to 2 (=20/10). # #Note: Cisco recommends using the default value of 2. NumTxFrames:2 -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
Thus spake Howard, W. Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet size curve and the latency curve? Many equipment vendors allow you to specify the number of ms of data to include in each packet while others require you to specify byes; I'll assume the former here since the latter is just a linear relation. Toll-quality voice requires a one-way latency of under ~125ms including any processing inside the endpoints. Increasing the packet size inherently adds delay on the transmit side. Then you have the obvious network latency. Finally, the receive side will have a buffer to smooth out jitter in the network; most vendors' equipment is now adaptive, so the jitter buffer might be anywhere from 10-50ms. To keep under budget, at least one of these factors must be minimized. Unfortunately, the public Internet has substantial jitter and high coast-to-coast latency, so often the only factor under your control is the transmit buffer. OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent QoS or within the same general area of the country, you can afford a larger transmit buffer without risking the walkie talkie effect. I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and intervleaving? FI is a technique for reducing jitter on slow, congested links like the last mile to a customer. It's often combined with a priority queue, since the latter is not enough on such links (but is on faster ones). Neither has much to do with the (tiny) sizes of voice packets. S
potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
a couple of off-the-wall notes. i'm bouncing off of stephen sprunk here, but in fact these notes have very little to do with his excellent article: Toll-quality voice requires ... ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS empire actually cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality voice is fine. (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the USA!) sadly, to get voice over ip (note, it's not telephony over ip, it's voice over ip), we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. (dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!) because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from voice. the solution of course is to use computers rather than phones and to use domain names rather than phone numbers. old money has a way of flattening the decline of old technology... until the cliff, that is. ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter and high coast-to-coast latency, ... just thinking out loud here, but which coasts do we mean when we talk about the public internet? my first thought was lisbon-to-sakhalin, rather than seattle-to-miami. given that the public internet isn't even centered in let alone predominated by north america any more, and that some of the best (and/or loudest) speakers at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) are from outside north america, it seems to me that the reform party should be thinking of a new name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over nanog governance... (i'm one of those who loves merit in their secretariat role but who thinks that issues of list/conference content/moderation, budgets, program committee membership, and overall policy should be handled representationally, like at ARIN.) (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing list, go find out, plz.) OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent QoS or within the same general area of the country, you can afford a larger transmit buffer without risking the walkie talkie effect. all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. that's a lot more than 125ms. I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and intervleaving? FI is a technique for reducing jitter on slow, congested links like the last mile to a customer. It's often combined with a priority queue, since the latter is not enough on such links (but is on faster ones). Neither has much to do with the (tiny) sizes of voice packets. somebody told me that they can get about 8 concurrent G.711 calls over an 11Mbit/sec 802.11 link, and maybe 9 if they use G.729. apparently the radio link arbitration on 802.11 is better than ALOHA but not as good as thickwire, and the packets-per-second maximum is low-in-practice, and we'll only see full rate (11Mbits/sec, 54Mbits/sec, whatever) from single-flow-large-MTU. that's ok for me, it's still good enough for a horsecam and a barnphone. but it's something worth checking into for anyone who plans larger deployment.
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Toll-quality voice requires ... ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS empire actually cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality voice is fine. (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the USA!) anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as originating from the VoPI. sadly, to get voice over ip (note, it's not telephony over ip, it's voice over ip), The difference between the two is readily apparent to businesses: VoIP::POTS as ToIP::PBX/Centrex we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. (dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!) because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from voice. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be damn the 911, full steam ahead. That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). the solution of course is to use computers rather than phones and to use domain names rather than phone numbers. fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service. ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter and high coast-to-coast latency, ... just thinking out loud here, but which coasts do we mean when we talk about the public internet? my first thought was lisbon-to-sakhalin, rather than seattle-to-miami. given that the public internet isn't even centered in let alone predominated by north america any more, How do you measure this? According to Telegeography, London has been the city with the most international connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New York ( environs) still had the highest aggregate international bandwidth during that time. I would certainly say that North America is a disproportionate source and sink of traffic relative to population. and that some of the best (and/or loudest) speakers at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) are from outside north america, it seems to me that the reform party should be thinking of a new name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over nanog governance... Well, North America does have its own issues, and there should be a venue for that. (side note: I'm far more likely to have my employer send me to Seattle than to Tokyo...) snip (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing list, go find out, plz.) Thanks for the plug :) OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent QoS or within the same general area of the country, you can afford a larger transmit buffer without risking the walkie talkie effect. all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, I encourage my competitors to use this voice quality standard. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: (dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!) Here in Sweden you can purchase a skypephone which is a POTS wireless phone with a USB connector. It has two call buttons, one which taps into your computer Skype client, one that works on the POTS line. It costs $100 plus tax here. I've been told it's decently well made. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as originating from the VoPI. as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or getting the cost savings that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy with the savings, then this isn't a bug. unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or other forms of statistical overcommit want to pocket the savings and don't want to disclose the service limitations. that gives the whole field an undeserved bad smell. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be damn the 911, full steam ahead. That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling me how safe i have to be. if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most the gov't should be allowed to require is that i put a warning label on my front door and on anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. this isn't a violation of the law as long as there's a warning label about it. but go ahead and visit a few large companies and tell me how many such warning labels you see. as an added boon, note that campuses with blocks of 1000 DIDs end up using the corporate headquarters or the address of the PBX as the 911 locator for all 1000 (or 1 or whatever) extensions, making the fire dept have to select from among 20 different buildings by looking for smoke plumes. geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, and that if old money telcos can't compete without asset protection, they should file for chapter 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling these things phone and then circling their wagons around the NANP. but that's not going to happen, so i predict that the internet will do what it always does-- work around the problem. so, domain names and personal computers rather than phone numbers and things-that-look-like-phones. i've got nothing against 911, and i love my local fire dept. the solution of course is to use computers rather than phones and to use domain names rather than phone numbers. fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service. and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack this service because the people who live in those homes don't want to pay a POTS tithe, we'll see some interesting legislation come down, and you can quote me on that. all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, I encourage my competitors to use this voice quality standard. back at DEC, the company policy was to build the products we thought the world should be using, and then try to convince the world to use them. DEC was later bought, in disgrace mind you, by a company whose policy was to figure out what the world wanted to use, and build it better and cheaper. if there are people out there who want cell-quality voice, are willing to live without 911, but want to make multiple calls at once with flat rate billing, they should be able to choose VoIP (or VoPI, i guess). however, the FCC seems to have decided that this would be $bad, which i guess from the point of view of old money telcos and capital inertia, it indeed is. -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as originating from the VoPI. as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or getting the cost savings that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy with the savings, then this isn't a bug. Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of this... unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or other forms of statistical overcommit want to pocket the savings and don't want to disclose the service limitations. that gives the whole field an undeserved bad smell. agreed. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be damn the 911, full steam ahead. That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling me how safe i have to be. if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most the gov't should be allowed to require is that i put a warning label on my front door and on anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. you have to dial 9-911. We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? snip regarding corporate bad behavior in configuring PBXes geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? actually, yes - I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, and that if old money telcos can't compete without asset protection, they should file for chapter 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling these things phone and then circling their wagons around the NANP. But VoIP companies calling their product a communications service and saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same 911 access is completely fine, huh? Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is fundamentally different from email or ftp. but that's not going to happen, so i predict that the internet will do what it always does-- work around the problem. so, domain names and personal computers rather than phone numbers and things-that-look-like-phones. snip and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack this service because the people who live in those homes don't want to pay a POTS tithe, we'll see some interesting legislation come down, and you can quote me on that. Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which makes national news. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Barak) writes: Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of this... like the libertarians like to say, use your dollar-votes. ... the most the gov't should be allowed to require is that i put a warning label on my front door and on anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? because some phones look like model cars, and that's not something any gov't ought to have a say about. ... specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? i'm in favour of the warning labels and standardization. my point is that out there in POTS-land there is wide variance in attitudes, and selective enforcement of the rules. ... I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. to that end, i've wondered why the US doesn't join other industrialized nations in regulating cellular roaming agreements and tower spacing and coverage. in the parts of sweden with a density less than 10 people per square kilometer, cell phones work. in similar parts of the US, they don't. market forces are allowed to dominate this equation even though we'd save a lot of lives if cell phones worked in the hinterlands. yet the FCC is ready to fine vonage if 911 doesn't work universally. why is it okay to let the public's interest suffer so as to promote innovation and competition when it's old money vs. old money, but not when it's old money vs. new money? But VoIP companies calling their product a communications service and saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same 911 access is completely fine, huh? don't take it so personally. MMORPG companies also beat the stuffing out of ISPs who can't maintain isochrony of packet delivery, too. anyone whose application isn't supported by the infrastructure is going to complain -- and rightly so. especially, Especially, ESPECIALLY if it's done on purpose with anticompetitive goals. Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is fundamentally different from email or ftp. ah, yes, but when i run a voice app on my computer and use domain names to reach out to folks rather than phone numbers, it's fundamentally The Same As email or ftp, and that's what makes it so wonderful and full of potential. and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack this service because the people who live in those homes don't want to pay a POTS tithe, we'll see some interesting legislation come down, and you can quote me on that. Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which makes national news. sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to have a telephone, to have that telephone in the kitchen or other main room of the home, and to be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, it'll be with vengeance. -- Paul Vixie
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thursday 31 March 2005 14:15, Paul Vixie wrote: occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? If / when we get back to the state of monopoly on data pipes such as water and sewer are today (I doubt you have little if any choice on where your water comes from or where your sewer goes - hence the regulation), then yes, we will probably end up with such regulation - but will also have the same choice of data pipes as we do water pipes today. -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: to that end, i've wondered why the US doesn't join other industrialized nations in regulating cellular roaming agreements and tower spacing and coverage. in the parts of sweden with a density less than 10 people per square kilometer, cell phones work. in similar parts of the US, they don't. Being a Swedish cellphone subscriber, I cannot roam at all between the Swedish providers. If you are an user from outside Sweden, you can roam with them all. Three parallell networks trying to cover a country the size of california but with only 9 million people in it, and generally they're not allowed to use each others infrastructure. Silly. The best coverage in the less populated parts of Sweden is still with an analogue 450MHz based system from the 80ties that is going to be shut down soon. But I do agree, the whole US market would be better off with more regulation in all areas actually. There is no need for a lot of parallell networks really, in theory you only need one, especially in parts that are less populated. So the local loop is regulated in Sweden and a lot of the swedish population can choose from 3-4 different DSL providers, all competing with price and speed. Current best price for 8M/1M adsl is $35 excluding tax. Of this the phone company gets $8 for the shared copper used in the local loop. Wholesale of bandwidth and capacity and dark fiber works well, everybody buys from everybody at decent prices. The capital municipality runs its own fiber business where anyone can rent fiber for approx $200 per month and kilometer of fiber (cost per kilometer goes down as distance goes up). The PTT is competing with the same prices, they have to. Telia (the PTT) is even one of the first to aggressively offer digital broadcast TV over broadband to compete with the cable companies. Comparing to other countries where the municipalities aren't involved in infrastructure, fiber in Sweden is cheap. When the municipality puts down other infrastructure such as heating and cooling pipes, paving roads etc, they also put in fiber. Doesn't cost much more when you're doing work anyway. The important thing of course is that they have to sell to everybody, otherwise you run into problems. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 2:40 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: But I do agree, the whole US market would be better off with more regulation in all areas actually. No, we're not Europe. There is no need for a lot of parallell networks really, Our system is chaotic and annoying at times but it produces better stuff in the form of whole new technologies and in the form of incremental improvements to existing technologies. I mean, you guys can wait around and then standardize on some point in the development cycle, but we're inventing the technologies and the incremental improvements. If we did what you do then we might as well all stop and stand still now. Besides which, your exmple of parallel [and identical] networks shows that there are dumb things to be found in trying to maintain artifical competition in a non-competitive environment. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 2:29 PM, Larry Smith wrote: If / when we get back to the state of monopoly on data pipes such as water and sewer are today (I doubt you have little if any choice on where your water comes from or where your sewer goes There are loads of non-municipal installs where if you want water and sewer, you dig your own holes in the ground. Regulations still exist for safety and such but that's separate from the monopoly providers found in denser installs. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On 3/31/2005 7:22 PM, Brad Knowles wrote: At 6:27 PM -0600 2005-03-31, Eric A. Hall wrote: Our system is chaotic and annoying at times but it produces better stuff in the form of whole new technologies and in the form of incremental improvements to existing technologies. Don't pretend that just because you're an American, you automatically know better, I don't pretend, and it's not because I'm an American or that your system is inherently better. I didn't say the system was better, I said it produces better stuff insofar as that applies to long-term advancement, but that's nothing to say about here and now. Stability is cheap and friendly, which is arguably better when you are trying to exlain why somebody's TDMA phone won't ever work with a CDMA network. OTOH, I'm glad the world didn't stand still on X.25 and OSI, if you know what I mean. They are different models is all. But if you insist on reading something into that, then perhaps it's yourself suffering from prejudicial bias. Just a thought. It is entirely possible that the Europeans might know a thing or two It's possible I guess. I mean, a European did bother advancing beyond Gopher to create HTTP, although I suspect that says more about the low-capitalization requirements of network services than anything about the cultural differences. -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
--- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sure as hell, we'll see laws requiring every home to have a telephone, to have that telephone in the kitchen or other main room of the home, and to be clearly marked. then the POTS tithe comes back, it'll be with vengeance. So given that you see this as likely, and by your tone, I'm guessing that you're not in favor of this outcome, what do you propose? David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Eric A. Hall wrote: Besides which, your exmple of parallel [and identical] networks shows that there are dumb things to be found in trying to maintain artifical competition in a non-competitive environment. Yes, of course there are plenty of examples of dumb things being done, but on the other hand I disagree with your example that the US is inventing everything, well, unless you didn't mean to imply that you use it as well. I attenced a Ethernet in the first mile seminar at N+I last year, and sitting there listening to US telcos saying that ethernet might work was just fascinating. The rest of the world has been doing this for years. Also, look at where implementation of high-speed local access is being done, it's not in the US anyway. If the PTTs can sit on their access networks without regulation, there will be no competition in the access, and then the market comes to a standstill because building new access networks costs an arm and a leg, especially if right-of-way is hard to come by and you have to negotiate with every land-owner on the way. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Bonomi Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 7:05 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors Dunno where you got the 'more than 2 subscribers' bit as defining over- subscribed. Unless you mis-read/mis-interpreted my remark about 50% utilization for VoIP data. Active VoIP transmission is about 80kbps. Depends on the codec. Yes, most people default to G.711, but my experience with G.729 and header compression has been good, and closer to 12Kbps. I definitely agree that it's much more symmetrical than web traffic, and could therefore mess with someone's capacity planning. Denying traffic that doesn't conform to your engineering is one response. Re-engineering is another. Do what you will with your network, I know what I'd do with mine. Lee
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:05:44PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote: [...] I think one of the major problems is that very few people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular settings on their systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not designed for high pps rates.. So, how are the WISP folk dealing with VOIP traffic as it becomes a larger piece of their customer's traffic? Does anyone have a way to force a given VOIP endpoint to use larger data frames? Or are the WISPs forced to deal with with a shredded business plan because their gear is optimized for large packets? (Or am I simply missing something?) Or do you write a TOS that says: Customer is not allowed to send and receive lots of small packets quickly? :-)
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
the bigger issue with 802.11 and VoIP is that wireless ethernet tends to be half duplex whereas codecs tend to run both directions at once. who's getting good service over 802.11 using G.711 or G.729? (no fair if your wireless handset has its own proprietary halfdup codec, i'm talking real SIP here.) -- Paul Vixie
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On 30 Mar 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: the bigger issue with 802.11 and VoIP is that wireless ethernet tends to be half duplex whereas codecs tend to run both directions at once. who's getting good service over 802.11 using G.711 or G.729? (no fair if your wireless handset has its own proprietary halfdup codec, i'm talking real SIP here.) hmm running g711 on a wifi handset or a lan phone with wifi bridging in the middle results in decent quality. at 2x80kbps vs 11mbps or 54mbps there should be plenty room for both directions to communicate without too much delay Steve
RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Howard, W. Lee wrote: planning. Denying traffic that doesn't conform to your engineering is one response. Re-engineering is another. Do what you will with your network, I know what I'd do with mine. I could be 1) over simplifying, 2) misunderstanding, the problem, but all of the networks that make up 'the Internet' are really just private networks. there is nothing that says any of these private networks have to transport all bits in all streams from end to end, yes? Given that, certainly some networks might choose to NOT transport VOIP or HTTP or BitTorennt across their networks. There are market reasons why this will, or could, eventually force them to re-evaluate their practices or face the consequences. I don't find it shocking at all that ISP-Y decides to block VOIP, especially if they have their own VOIP service offering. It might not be the BEST plan in the long run for them, but certainly it makes some sense to them... Just don't use their network(s), and complain to their support organization(s) about the failures on their networks. -Chris
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +, Paul Vixie wrote: the bigger issue with 802.11 and VoIP is that wireless ethernet tends to be half duplex whereas codecs tend to run both directions at once. who's getting good service over 802.11 using G.711 or G.729? (no fair if your wireless handset has its own proprietary halfdup codec, i'm talking real SIP here.) you didn't ask for the size of the wireless network(1), in my experience i've not had any (major) problems with this, the key is to insure that the packets are somehow QoS'ed at the edge, even if your provider won't do QoS to you, you can do some neat artifical QoS on your upstream/uplink interfaces.. What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and leave space for my UDP packet streams. I think one of the major problems is that very few people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because they can't set these more granular settings on their systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not designed for high pps rates.. big thing i've noticed in operational experience is that not all 802.11 handsets handle AP roaming seamlessly, some want to disconnect then re-dhcp for what is the same ssid/network domain. - jared (1) - i'm speaking for a single-ssid network with more than one AP that covers long-distance clients at 1Mb/s speeds on 802.11b (250meter+ one way) -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Bonomi wrote: |From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 26 12:37:15 2005 |Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:35:31 -0500 |From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] |To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Cc: nanog@merit.edu |Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors | | | |http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/159905772 | | |...In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance | of its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right | to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a | list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or | downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site | hosting. | |Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? | | | *ALL* things are relative. grin | |I haven't studied |this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps |(http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I |typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... | | | There's a big difference. web browser activity is typically *very* bursty. | 'Average' data rate for a any single user is probably in the range of 1%-3% | of the burst peaks. | | VoIP, on the other hand, has an average utilization that approximates 50% | of the burst rate. In _both directions. | | I suspect that that latter factor is a fair part of the problem. That | the cable company has allocated fairly limited bandwidth for the 'upstream' | direction (from the customer to the head-end). That that 'available' | bandwidth is *grossly* over-subscribed, on the presumption that traffic | in that direction would generally be small, and infrequent. When those | assupmtions get violated, _everything_ goes to h*ll. wry grin | | Not just for 'he who' commits the violation, but everybody else who is | sharing that over-subscribed link. Well, Since I run an ISP that is very small time, has (at this time) only a single T1 upstream, all my subscribers are wireless clients, I guess if I have more than 2 subscribers, I am over subscribed? Hardly seems fair. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCR+o80STXFHxUucwRAt6lAJ9/khqQ0iFFCwReKleCYvsPLePGzwCfZGbd Tg8q8nyPcYZQSpXSD9hajbA= =wZfh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:27:56 -0500 From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robert Bonomi wrote: |From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 26 12:37:15 2005 |Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:35:31 -0500 |From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] |To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Cc: nanog@merit.edu |Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors | | | |http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/159905772 | | |...In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance | of its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right | to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a | list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or | downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site | hosting. | |Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? | | | *ALL* things are relative. grin | |I haven't studied |this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps |(http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I |typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... | | | There's a big difference. web browser activity is typically *very* bursty. | 'Average' data rate for a any single user is probably in the range of 1%-3% | of the burst peaks. | | VoIP, on the other hand, has an average utilization that approximates 50% | of the burst rate. In _both directions. | | I suspect that that latter factor is a fair part of the problem. That | the cable company has allocated fairly limited bandwidth for the 'upstream' | direction (from the customer to the head-end). That that 'available' | bandwidth is *grossly* over-subscribed, on the presumption that traffic | in that direction would generally be small, and infrequent. When those | assupmtions get violated, _everything_ goes to h*ll. wry grin | | Not just for 'he who' commits the violation, but everybody else who is | sharing that over-subscribed link. Well, Since I run an ISP that is very small time, has (at this time) only a single T1 upstream, all my subscribers are wireless clients, I guess if I have more than 2 subscribers, I am over subscribed? I'd be willing bet that you do over-subscribe. That's how virtually _every_ provider makes it's money. Selling more downstream bandwidth than it has upstream bandwidth. On the presumption that not everybody will be using _all_ the bandwith they 'bought' at the same time. Dunno where you got the 'more than 2 subscribers' bit as defining over- subscribed. Unless you mis-read/mis-interpreted my remark about 50% utilization for VoIP data. Active VoIP transmission is about 80kbps. on average, somebody is talking about half the time, and listening the other half the time. so you get an average of about 40kbps. In each direction. 50% of the 'burst' level. For web traffic, the burst peaks (going downstream) may be a lot higher. but the _average_ traffic level for a customer is a much smaller percentage of the peak level. the bursts are, in effect, much more extreme. And, of course, the upstream traffic is usually 'as nothing', compared to the downstream direction. Unless you've got customers running servers, that is. I'd be surprised if 'requests' from a web client averaged 400 bps for an average customer. Or 1% of a typical VoIP conversation. If somebody designed their system with asymmetric allocation of bandwidh resources between the upstream and downstream direction -- based on the presumption of web-like traffic; VoIP traffic is wildly contrary to 'expectations'. And performance can go to h*ll. Not only for the VoIP caller, but for everybody else, too. It's not necessarily a result of bad network design. Just the usual case of the world changed out from under you. Implementing the necessary engineering changes, to make things work right again, can take a while, and cost beaucoup dollars. Which means it may not be _feasable_ to do it, at the price-point of the present service.
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/159905772 ...In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance of its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site hosting. Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? I haven't studied this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps (http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... Are they saying that anything that might consume over 100Kbps isn't going to be allowed? Eric :)
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Eric Gauthier wrote: Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? I haven't studied this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps (http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... Are they saying that anything that might consume over 100Kbps isn't going to be allowed? 90kbps may be low bandwidth but the packets per second are a killer for some equipment. VoIP typically has small packets, 80 bytes or 160 bytes, whereas your webbrowser has most packets close to the max MTU, usually 1500 byte packets. There is quite a bit of wireless gear that buckles under the stress of very few VoIP streams. Those few streams add up to much less then the theoretical advertised throughput. Adi
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
- Original Message - From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? I haven't studied this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps (http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... Are they saying that anything that might consume over 100Kbps isn't going to be allowed? it's not about bandwidth, it's about pps. namely, radios don't very much like a lot of pps ;] -p --- paul galynin
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 26 12:37:15 2005 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:35:31 -0500 From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/159905772 ...In what the company claims is an effort to preserve the performance of its pre-standard WiMAX network, Clearwire says it reserves the right to prohibit the use of a wide range of bandwidth-hungry applications, a list that apparently includes VoIP as well as the uploading or downloading of streaming video or audio, and high-traffic Web site hosting. Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? *ALL* things are relative. grin I haven't studied this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps (http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... There's a big difference. web browser activity is typically *very* bursty. 'Average' data rate for a any single user is probably in the range of 1%-3% of the burst peaks. VoIP, on the other hand, has an average utilization that approximates 50% of the burst rate. In _both directions. I suspect that that latter factor is a fair part of the problem. That the cable company has allocated fairly limited bandwidth for the 'upstream' direction (from the customer to the head-end). That that 'available' bandwidth is *grossly* over-subscribed, on the presumption that traffic in that direction would generally be small, and infrequent. When those assupmtions get violated, _everything_ goes to h*ll. wry grin Not just for 'he who' commits the violation, but everybody else who is sharing that over-subscribed link. This is what happens when you sell up to $BIGNUM connectivity, without discussing a minimum CCIR promise. IF a customer does get throttled/blocked, they might have some fun with a false advertising assertation.
Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Adi Linden wrote: 90kbps may be low bandwidth but the packets per second are a killer for some equipment. VoIP typically has small packets, 80 bytes or 160 bytes, whereas your webbrowser has most packets close to the max MTU, usually 1500 byte packets. There is quite a bit of wireless gear that buckles under the stress of very few VoIP streams. Those few streams add up to much less then the theoretical advertised throughput. A typical voip call is a packet in each direction every 20ms, this makes a total of 100pps. Translated into a tcp stream with one ack per data packet, this would mean 600 kilobit/s bandwidth usage with the same pps. I would be quite upset if I couldn't use 600 kilobit/s for approximately the same time I would use voip per day (which truthfully wouldnt be much). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul G Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:12 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors - Original Message - From: Eric Gauthier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors Hrm... Isn't a VoIP call realtively low bandwidth? I haven't studied this, but Vonage's site seems to imply that the maximum data rate is 90Kbps (http://www.vonage.com/help_knowledgeBase_article.php?article=190). I typically see speeds greater than this from my web browser... Are they saying that anything that might consume over 100Kbps isn't going to be allowed? it's not about bandwidth, it's about pps. namely, radios don't very much like a lot of pps ;] Using Vonage and a call to my cell phone, an unscientific, but reasonably accurate estimate: I left a voice mail on my cell my voice is my passport and dropped the call from the Vonage side. Call duration was 81s. Average speed was 80pps. The avg packet size was 200b. The call was BYE at 60 seconds, but there was a REGISTER at 76s so I included that as the call teardown marker and in the averaging. I didn't think being liberal would hurt. -M
