Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On Mar 1, 2011, at 8:01 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Bret Palsson" > >> VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same >> RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something? > > Well, you try to hold a conversation with someone while there's Torrent > traffic going on on the same link, using a third-party SIP provider, and > you tell *me* how that works out... > > Cheers, > -- jra It's worked out great for me in a number of places. OTOH, it was kind of dicey even without the torrents from other places. I found that bandwidth and jitter were the bigger issues than other applications I was sharing the link with. I even managed to get passable call quality (though far from ideal) calling the US on a US third party provider from my soft-phone on my laptop from Kigali, Rwanda. I think that's close to a worst case scenario, frankly. These days, voice is a very low-bandwidth service. On any decent link, it seems to get through just fine. Owen
Re: Request for assistance with BGP feeds
thanks heaps everyone - I'm now well provisioned - now to configure them all! Geoff On 02/03/2011, at 1:53 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > Hi > > I am conducting some research relating to BGP behaviour and I need some eBGP > multihop feeds - IPv4 and/or IPv6 eBGP, and full eBGP route table feeds > please. These are incoming feeds only (I will be announcing _nothing_ back in > these sessions - I'll filtering outbound and you should defensively filter > inbound of course). I am looking at the real time behaviour of BGP updates in > a relatively dense multi-peer environment, which is why I am looking for a > number of full route feeds. > > Please drop me a note if you can assist me with this activity. > > Thanks in advance, > > Geoff > > > > -- > > Geoff Huston > APNIC > > > > > -- Geoff Huston Chief Scientist, APNIC +61 7 3858 3100 g...@apnic.net
RE: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
I'm extremely annoyed by the marketing PR of those professional service arms when their transit/service provide business doesn't have IPv6 fully deployed. Please have your own house in order first, or be more humble about your services, please. Frank -Original Message- From: -Hammer- [mailto:bhmc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 6:17 PM To: 'Franck Martin'; 'George Bonser' Cc: 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! I don't know about that. Even though the carriers (USA) I've talked to are having trouble presenting native IPv6 to me in the next few quarters, they have no problem pitching professional services to help me with the implementation. Several of my hardware vendors have too. Don't be surprised at all to see this presented to senior management as a new revenue stream. "Helping the inept prepare for tomorrow". -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd." -Jack Herer -Original Message- From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:17 PM To: George Bonser Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of the month because they could not use this valuable time to find customers with commissions... - Original Message - > From: "George Bonser" > To: "NANOG list" > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011 9:39:33 AM > Subject: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! > Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier > 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the > UK. > They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK > rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we > were the very first to ask for it. > > Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but > when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your > responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for > another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very > first > ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is > just lame. > > George
RE: What vexes VoIP users?
Scott: Are you saying that the large MSOs don't use CM configuration files that create separate downstream and upstream service flows for Internet, voice signaling, and voice bearer traffic? Frank -Original Message- From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:35 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users? offered through the various broadband providers I have had. > Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a > cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which > most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they should > be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over a > separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV > traffic on the link. > No, this incorrect. Packet Cable most certainly _is_ VOIP (a MGCP variant to be precise until 2.0 after which it is SIP). While a few providers, usually for non-technical reasons, did deploy an entirely separate set of downstream and upstream interfaces that is far from the norm. AFAIK the only top 20 MSO to do so in scale was Charter and I don't know if they continue that today. Comcast, the largest cable telephone provider certainly does not nor do providers need to since any Packetcable CMTS and EMTA combo offers reliable prioritization in the same channel(s) as the normal data path. > So of course Vonage and other VoN products will be less rugged. > > As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been > looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP > services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between "generally" > and "ever".) As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant. > Cheers, > -- jra > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, George Bonser wrote: Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very first ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is just lame. I would also recommend that the sales organizations of those providers be provided with some level of training and/or coordination with their SEs and technical groups to understand what people are talking about when someone asks about that "eye-pee-vee-six" thing. Another common complaint has been getting different (often contradictory) responses from different salescritters. jms
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
I guess I'll plug this Wikipedia page again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers -- Jeff S Wheeler Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
I'm sensing you have been burned badly by VoIP... which is too bad. I'm going to step out of the conversation since no one but you is likely to "win". Which isn't a bad thing, but trying to help someone understand a bit more about how some VoIP providers actually work now a days, who have already made up their mind... it's just not worth the effort. Certainly it's not helping others on this list. -Bret Bret Palsson Sr. Network & Systems Administrator Jive Communications, Inc. www.getjive.com Sent from my iPad On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Nathan Eisenberg" > >>> "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable >>> providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over >>> Internet; where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and >>> through >>> whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the >>> provider. >> >> This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand (What vexes VoIP >> users/providers). Further, it's ridiculous to say that something is a >> subset of something else, and yet not that something else. A1 cannot >> be a subtype of A without being A. A1 cannot be a subset of steak >> sauce without being steak sauce. Yes, it's a specific type of steak >> sauce, and is basically made of corn sugar, which may negate some of >> the issues with tomato-paste based steak sauces, but it is STILL a >> steak sauce, and is still relevant when talking about how many people >> put sauce on their steak as opposed to utilizing old fashioned steak >> rub. > > I believe you have a polarity reversal in your reading of my post. > > VoN is a subset of VoIP; it is what providers who *advertise* VoIP are > generally actually selling; it is much more prone to problems on the > local IP loop and the backbone than the subset of VoIP which the cable > company who's selling you the broadband is offering. > >>> Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly >>> not >>> 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be >>> going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which >>> is >>> therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" >>> service >>> it might be competing with." >>> >>> Better? >> >> Not really, because you're still arguing a point that doesn't matter. >> Is it Voice? Is it IP? Then it's VoIP. A lot of the issues are still >> relevant, and certainly the number of users can be said to count. The >> number of hops doesn't matter one iota. Is it not email if you're only >> 1 hop away from your SMTP server? > > Aw, c'mon with the strawmen, Nathan. SMTP isn't latency, jitter, and > dropped-packet sensitive and SIP/RTP is, and that's pretty obvious. > > Yes, the number of hops and exchange points matters to VoIP in ways > that it doesn't matter to SMTP and POP. > > I will attempt, one more time, to clarify my original underlying point. > Then, if you absolutely insist, I shall give up: > > """ > Lots of people sell PSTN gateway access via the TCP/IP public Internet. > > Nearly all of them call this VoIP. It is, but that term is insufficiently > specific to allow the comparison of this service with "VoIP" service > offered as a "triple-play" by broadband/cable companies, because their > service is "protected" in one fashion or another from many impairments > which the service sold by those third-parties is prone to, by the > nature of the differences in their transport. > > Additionally, characterizing that third-party service solely as "VoIP" > tends to give that term a bad reputation in other contexts, such as > protected internal VoIP PBX service, in which it's perfectly suitable, > even though Vonage is generally no better than mediocre. > """ > > Did that more clearly explain why I'm unhappy with the fast and loose > usage of the term VoIP in many contexts? > > Cheers, > -- jra >
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "Michael Thomas" > > I wasn't suggesting QOS. I was suggesting *there's a completely > > separate pipe*, on non-Internet connected IP transport, carrying only the > > voice traffic, directly to a termination point, which is dedicated > > from the triple-play box and nailed up. > > > > Are you suggesting that's *not* how it's being done in production? > > There were some MSO's who were thinking about doing that, > but as I recall they went the way of the AAL2 dodo bird. Maybe > a few deployed it, but from a packetcable/cablelabs perspective > they weren't on the table. MGCP was the answer to getting > rid of class 5 switches altogether, which the MSO's didn't > have any particular affinity to. It was always rtp over ip over > DOCSIS with DSCP in the core and arguments about RSVP. Over *the same* IP transport which carried packets from the user's router or PC to the broadband provider's edge router? Really? Then Bright House was either "special", or pretty carefully misleading in the advertising they did here. > Mike, member of the packetcable security spec team whose > work spawned SRTP and KINK amongst other things Well, you'd certainly have been in a position to hear about it. I've Been Mislead. My apologies, all. Cheers, -- jra
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "Nathan Eisenberg" > > "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable > > providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over > > Internet; where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and > > through > > whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the > > provider. > > This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand (What vexes VoIP > users/providers). Further, it's ridiculous to say that something is a > subset of something else, and yet not that something else. A1 cannot > be a subtype of A without being A. A1 cannot be a subset of steak > sauce without being steak sauce. Yes, it's a specific type of steak > sauce, and is basically made of corn sugar, which may negate some of > the issues with tomato-paste based steak sauces, but it is STILL a > steak sauce, and is still relevant when talking about how many people > put sauce on their steak as opposed to utilizing old fashioned steak > rub. I believe you have a polarity reversal in your reading of my post. VoN is a subset of VoIP; it is what providers who *advertise* VoIP are generally actually selling; it is much more prone to problems on the local IP loop and the backbone than the subset of VoIP which the cable company who's selling you the broadband is offering. > > Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly > > not > > 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be > > going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which > > is > > therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" > > service > > it might be competing with." > > > > Better? > > Not really, because you're still arguing a point that doesn't matter. > Is it Voice? Is it IP? Then it's VoIP. A lot of the issues are still > relevant, and certainly the number of users can be said to count. The > number of hops doesn't matter one iota. Is it not email if you're only > 1 hop away from your SMTP server? Aw, c'mon with the strawmen, Nathan. SMTP isn't latency, jitter, and dropped-packet sensitive and SIP/RTP is, and that's pretty obvious. Yes, the number of hops and exchange points matters to VoIP in ways that it doesn't matter to SMTP and POP. I will attempt, one more time, to clarify my original underlying point. Then, if you absolutely insist, I shall give up: """ Lots of people sell PSTN gateway access via the TCP/IP public Internet. Nearly all of them call this VoIP. It is, but that term is insufficiently specific to allow the comparison of this service with "VoIP" service offered as a "triple-play" by broadband/cable companies, because their service is "protected" in one fashion or another from many impairments which the service sold by those third-parties is prone to, by the nature of the differences in their transport. Additionally, characterizing that third-party service solely as "VoIP" tends to give that term a bad reputation in other contexts, such as protected internal VoIP PBX service, in which it's perfectly suitable, even though Vonage is generally no better than mediocre. """ Did that more clearly explain why I'm unhappy with the fast and loose usage of the term VoIP in many contexts? Cheers, -- jra
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Works just fine. Yes that is one of the many tests we do. It's call partnerships with carriers and prioritization. DSCP works wonders, so do EF queues and policies, yes this is on the carrier side. Sounds like you need a VoIP company that cares. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Bret Palsson" > >> VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same >> RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something? > > Well, you try to hold a conversation with someone while there's Torrent > traffic going on on the same link, using a third-party SIP provider, and > you tell *me* how that works out... > > Cheers, > -- jra >
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On 03/01/2011 07:51 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant. "Cost-effective"? Could you expand on how the provisioning of a second virtual pipe down the hill to a cable box has any incremental costs at all? The original analog cable plant was separated into bands, so carving out IP of any kind meant sacrificing channels. They initially put the IP uplink into a band that was used originally used for very low bandwidth uplink signalling... the kind the big refrigerators and other noise producers torqued badly. So from the MSO's perspective, giving QoS treatment to the upstream had a big potential business case. Of course, analog cable is now gone and I doubt that any of the original assumptions have much bearing today. Mike, where's John Chapman when you need him?
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On 03/01/2011 08:01 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "Bret Palsson" VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something? Well, you try to hold a conversation with someone while there's Torrent traffic going on on the same link, using a third-party SIP provider, and you tell *me* how that works out... That's completely under the control of the user's CPE: just get a router that prioritizes one over the other, or use a cable modem that does that for you. It doesn't require any Docsis magic. Mike
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "Bret Palsson" > VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same > RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something? Well, you try to hold a conversation with someone while there's Torrent traffic going on on the same link, using a third-party SIP provider, and you tell *me* how that works out... Cheers, -- jra
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On 03/01/2011 07:33 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: Is IP running over an L2 with a SLA any less "IP" than one without a SLA? That's all the DOCSIS qos is: dynamically creating/tearing down enhanced L2 qos channels for rtp to run over. It's been quite a while since I've been involved, but what we were working on with CableLabs certainly was VoIP in every respect I can think of. Wow. I thought I was pretty clear in what I said above; I'm sorry you didn't get it. "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over Internet; where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and through whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the provider. Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly not 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which is therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" service it might be competing with." Better? Uh, I was part of the standards at packetcable from around 1999 or so on, and it was always plain old rtp over docsis. Since the upstream was really lousy back then, the MSO's wanted to give committed bit rate l2 docsis channels to the rtp traffic, but it was still rtp/rtcp flowing through them. So I still have no idea what distinction you're trying to draw. I wasn't suggesting QOS. I was suggesting *there's a completely separate pipe*, on non-Internet connected IP transport, carrying only the voice traffic, directly to a termination point, which is dedicated from the triple-play box and nailed up. Are you suggesting that's *not* how it's being done in production? There were some MSO's who were thinking about doing that, but as I recall they went the way of the AAL2 dodo bird. Maybe a few deployed it, but from a packetcable/cablelabs perspective they weren't on the table. MGCP was the answer to getting rid of class 5 switches altogether, which the MSO's didn't have any particular affinity to. It was always rtp over ip over DOCSIS with DSCP in the core and arguments about RSVP. Mike, member of the packetcable security spec team whose work spawned SRTP and KINK amongst other things
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "Scott Helms" > > Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a > > cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which > > most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they > > should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over > > a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV > > traffic on the link. > > No, this incorrect. Packet Cable most certainly _is_ VOIP (a MGCP > variant to be precise until 2.0 after which it is SIP). While a few > providers, usually for non-technical reasons, did deploy an entirely > separate set of downstream and upstream interfaces that is far from the > norm. AFAIK the only top 20 MSO to do so in scale was Charter and I > don't know if they continue that today. Comcast, the largest cable > telephone provider certainly does not nor do providers need to since > any Packetcable CMTS and EMTA combo offers reliable prioritization in the > same channel(s) as the normal data path. Indeed. Then either Bright House is lying, their deployment was pretty early, or I'm nuts, cause I'm pretty certain that their early triple- play advertising said this -- though not in so many technical words. > > So of course Vonage and other VoN products will be less rugged. > > > > As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been > > looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP > > services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between > > "generally" and "ever".) > As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its > not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that > over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't > get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant. "Cost-effective"? Could you expand on how the provisioning of a second virtual pipe down the hill to a cable box has any incremental costs at all? Cheers, -- jra
RE: What vexes VoIP users?
> "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable > providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over > Internet; > where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and through > whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the > provider. This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand (What vexes VoIP users/providers). Further, it's ridiculous to say that something is a subset of something else, and yet not that something else. A1 cannot be a subtype of A without being A. A1 cannot be a subset of steak sauce without being steak sauce. Yes, it's a specific type of steak sauce, and is basically made of corn sugar, which may negate some of the issues with tomato-paste based steak sauces, but it is STILL a steak sauce, and is still relevant when talking about how many people put sauce on their steak as opposed to utilizing old fashioned steak rub. > Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly not > 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be > going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which is > therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" > service > it might be competing with." > > Better? Not really, because you're still arguing a point that doesn't matter. Is it Voice? Is it IP? Then it's VoIP. A lot of the issues are still relevant, and certainly the number of users can be said to count. The number of hops doesn't matter one iota. Is it not email if you're only 1 hop away from your SMTP server? Nathan
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Sent from my iPhone On Mar 1, 2011, at 8:35 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Michael Thomas" > >> On 03/01/2011 05:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >>> Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a >>> cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which >>> most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they >>> should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over >>> a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV >>> traffic on the link. >>> >> >> Er, I'm not sure what the difference you're trying to make. > > Er, I'm not sure why... > >> Is IP running over an L2 with a SLA any less "IP" than one >> without a SLA? That's all the DOCSIS qos is: dynamically >> creating/tearing down enhanced L2 qos channels for rtp >> to run over. It's been quite a while since I've been involved, >> but what we were working on with CableLabs certainly was >> VoIP in every respect I can think of. > > Wow. > > I thought I was pretty clear in what I said above; I'm sorry you didn't > get it. > > "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable > providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over Internet; > where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and through > whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the > provider. > > Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly not > 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be > going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which is > therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" service > it might be competing with." > > Better? > Many VoIP companies like jive, peer with providers to give customers "*one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly not > > 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be > going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you;" VoN? Didn't know there was a difference. Same protocols, same RTP,RTCP, Codecs, DSCP values. Am I missing something? >> | As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been >>> looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP >>> services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between >>> "generally" >>> and "ever".) >> >> There's is a great deal of overhead involved with the booking >> of resources for enhanced qos -- one big problem is that it >> adds quite a bit of latency to call set up. I'm sceptical at this >> point that it makes much difference for voice quality since voice >> traffic is such a tiny proportion of traffic in general -- a lot has >> changed in the last 15 years. Now video... I'm willing to believe >> that that enhanced qos still makes a difference there, but >> with youtube, netflix, etc, etc the genie isn't getting back in >> that bottle any time soon. So Moore's law is likely to have the >> final word there too making all of the docsis qos stuff ultimately >> irrelevant. > > I wasn't suggesting QOS. I was suggesting *there's a completely separate > pipe*, on non-Internet connected IP transport, carrying only the > voice traffic, directly to a termination point, which is dedicated > from the triple-play box and nailed up. > > Are you suggesting that's *not* how it's being done in production? > > Cheers, > -- jra >
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "Michael Thomas" > On 03/01/2011 05:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a > > cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which > > most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they > > should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over > > a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV > > traffic on the link. > > > > Er, I'm not sure what the difference you're trying to make. Er, I'm not sure why... > Is IP running over an L2 with a SLA any less "IP" than one > without a SLA? That's all the DOCSIS qos is: dynamically > creating/tearing down enhanced L2 qos channels for rtp > to run over. It's been quite a while since I've been involved, > but what we were working on with CableLabs certainly was > VoIP in every respect I can think of. Wow. I thought I was pretty clear in what I said above; I'm sorry you didn't get it. "What everyone is actually *selling* commercially, except for cable providers, is *not* VoIP; it's a subset of that: VoN; Voice Over Internet; where the IP transport *goes over the public internet*, and through whatever exchange points may be necessary to get from you to the provider. Cable companies are selling you *one hop* (maybe 2 or 3; certainly not 12-18), over a link with bandwidth protected from whatever may be going on on the Internet IP link they're also selling you; and which is therefore guaranteed to have better quality than whatever "VoIP" service it might be competing with." Better? > | As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been > > looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP > > services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between > > "generally" > > and "ever".) > > There's is a great deal of overhead involved with the booking > of resources for enhanced qos -- one big problem is that it > adds quite a bit of latency to call set up. I'm sceptical at this > point that it makes much difference for voice quality since voice > traffic is such a tiny proportion of traffic in general -- a lot has > changed in the last 15 years. Now video... I'm willing to believe > that that enhanced qos still makes a difference there, but > with youtube, netflix, etc, etc the genie isn't getting back in > that bottle any time soon. So Moore's law is likely to have the > final word there too making all of the docsis qos stuff ultimately > irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting QOS. I was suggesting *there's a completely separate pipe*, on non-Internet connected IP transport, carrying only the voice traffic, directly to a termination point, which is dedicated from the triple-play box and nailed up. Are you suggesting that's *not* how it's being done in production? Cheers, -- jra
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On 01/03/11 12:07 PM, Jake Khuon wrote: And I agree with the previous poster that in this day and age, it is unlikely that the sales group of a global provider would not have encountered such a request. If anything, they should have been hit with those kinds of requests starting ten years ago. Perhaps that particular salesperson had not but he/she should have been briefed on it and should be familiar enough with deployment status to be able to talk intelligently and honestly with a potential customer. You can use their reply to an IPv6 request as a bit of a bozo filter, much like the RFP discussed here used RFC 1149 to determine if the companies actually read and understood the RFCs they were expected to support. http://www.itworld.com/NWW010409bradner I *love* using Bozo filters. Anytime you can trick companies into revealing their true colors, you are a step ahead in the game. jc
Request for assistance with BGP feeds
Hi I am conducting some research relating to BGP behaviour and I need some eBGP multihop feeds - IPv4 and/or IPv6 eBGP, and full eBGP route table feeds please. These are incoming feeds only (I will be announcing _nothing_ back in these sessions - I'll filtering outbound and you should defensively filter inbound of course). I am looking at the real time behaviour of BGP updates in a relatively dense multi-peer environment, which is why I am looking for a number of full route feeds. Please drop me a note if you can assist me with this activity. Thanks in advance, Geoff -- Geoff Huston APNIC
Re: Coffer MAC Address Vendor Database
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 17:25, Scott Berkman wrote: > Otherwise, anyone have recommendations for another resource for this > information? > http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/public.html ~Matt
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
- Original Message - > From: "George Bonser" > > I could buy that if it weren't for the fact that it took two days to > come back with that answer. An off the cuff "wow, nobody has ever > asked me that before, I need to check on it" would have been > understandable for a new rep. Two days later coming back with "gee, we > really haven't had anyone ask about that before" is bogus. > > I am not trying to beat anyone up here, the point is a general one for > the providers out there. If you can't offer v6, say so, don't try to > dance around it and pretend that customer is the only one on the > planet with a migration plan because we know better. At this point, I'd even settle for a lie from one of my upstreams. I've asked the local tech folks a couple of times over the last year or so, on top of a request to our sales rep, without even a single response to the question of "do you support v6 yet and, if not, what's your timeline?". -- /Jason
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
In message , Deepak Ja in writes: > > The board to the managers/sales people: "Please explain us again why we > > can't have more customers?" > > Let's be real for a second, there are plenty of backbone-ish companies > that have been around long enough to accumulate tons, and tons of IPv4 > space. > > I remember an old SP that used to give every PC in their NOC, possibly > their whole company, a /24 and /16s weren't hard to get either. Lots of > shops that had IP-based hosting that have gone name-based probably have > tons of available space too. > > The "no more IP addresses available" will affect folks unevenly... if I > were to guess, mostly the folks that aren't large/old enough to have gobs > of space lying around but are too large to get provider space. I'm also > guessing that these guys are the ones creating the most pressure for IPv6 > in their upstreams, as it serves their interests to make IPv4 unneeded as > soon as possible. > > The next big surge of IT spend that isn't about reduction or > consolidation will create pressure on Enterprises to use more address > space, and if they are nearly out of IPv4 space (with firewalls, NAT, > VPNs, etc, not a lot of pressure there) they will push their SPs for it. > Government contracts for telecomm all require IPv6 support, and all the > vendors on them say they support it, but gov't customers trying to order > say that is a no-go. (As of two weeks ago)... so even gov't isn't a big > enough buyer to make this happen sooner. > > DJ While some companies will have plenty of IPv4 space for a long time, not all the people they communicate with will. Some of them will be forced into using IPv6 sooner rather than later. All companies need to be ready for that regardless of how much IPv4 they have. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
RE: Coffer MAC Address Vendor Database
Back up now, thanks for the responses. -Scott -Original Message- From: Scott Berkman [mailto:sc...@sberkman.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 5:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Coffer MAC Address Vendor Database Is anyone on the list that knows about the Coffer MAC address vendor database (http://www.coffer.com/mac_find/)? I have used this resource for years and I am now getting a permission error (403 Forbidden) when I try to go to any page on that site. Otherwise, anyone have recommendations for another resource for this information? Thanks, -Scott
RE: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
> The board to the managers/sales people: "Please explain us again why we > can't have more customers?" Let's be real for a second, there are plenty of backbone-ish companies that have been around long enough to accumulate tons, and tons of IPv4 space. I remember an old SP that used to give every PC in their NOC, possibly their whole company, a /24 and /16s weren't hard to get either. Lots of shops that had IP-based hosting that have gone name-based probably have tons of available space too. The "no more IP addresses available" will affect folks unevenly... if I were to guess, mostly the folks that aren't large/old enough to have gobs of space lying around but are too large to get provider space. I'm also guessing that these guys are the ones creating the most pressure for IPv6 in their upstreams, as it serves their interests to make IPv4 unneeded as soon as possible. The next big surge of IT spend that isn't about reduction or consolidation will create pressure on Enterprises to use more address space, and if they are nearly out of IPv4 space (with firewalls, NAT, VPNs, etc, not a lot of pressure there) they will push their SPs for it. Government contracts for telecomm all require IPv6 support, and all the vendors on them say they support it, but gov't customers trying to order say that is a no-go. (As of two weeks ago)... so even gov't isn't a big enough buyer to make this happen sooner. DJ
RE: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
I don't know about that. Even though the carriers (USA) I've talked to are having trouble presenting native IPv6 to me in the next few quarters, they have no problem pitching professional services to help me with the implementation. Several of my hardware vendors have too. Don't be surprised at all to see this presented to senior management as a new revenue stream. "Helping the inept prepare for tomorrow". -Hammer- "I was a normal American nerd." -Jack Herer -Original Message- From: Franck Martin [mailto:fra...@genius.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 3:17 PM To: George Bonser Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of the month because they could not use this valuable time to find customers with commissions... - Original Message - > From: "George Bonser" > To: "NANOG list" > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011 9:39:33 AM > Subject: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! > Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier > 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the > UK. > They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK > rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we > were the very first to ask for it. > > Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but > when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your > responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for > another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very > first > ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is > just lame. > > George
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
- Original Message - > From: "Jeroen Massar" > To: "Franck Martin" > Cc: "George Bonser" , "NANOG list" > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011 1:41:45 PM > Subject: Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! > On 2011-03-01 22:16, Franck Martin wrote: > > Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable > > IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking > > them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of > > the month because they could not use this valuable time to find > > customers with commissions... > > And that, hits the hammer right on the nail... > > Or to put it better: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc > > It always just depends on whose pocket it is, in the above example the > blocker is the sales droid whose pockets won't get any deeper at the > moment, in a lot of other cases it is the management types who don't > get > a direct benefit from it. > > And actually, who can blame them? Be sure to know that when time runs > out though that they will come screaming at the techies, but then > again, > those types generally don't get the bonusses for that then to save the > ass of the above types... > The board to the managers/sales people: "Please explain us again why we can't have more customers?"
Re: Coffer MAC Address Vendor Database
Straight from the source: http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/public.html -Randy - Original Message - > Is anyone on the list that knows about the Coffer MAC address vendor > database (http://www.coffer.com/mac_find/)? > > > > I have used this resource for years and I am now getting a permission > error > (403 Forbidden) when I try to go to any page on that site. > > > > Otherwise, anyone have recommendations for another resource for this > information? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Scott > > >
Coffer MAC Address Vendor Database
Is anyone on the list that knows about the Coffer MAC address vendor database (http://www.coffer.com/mac_find/)? I have used this resource for years and I am now getting a permission error (403 Forbidden) when I try to go to any page on that site. Otherwise, anyone have recommendations for another resource for this information? Thanks, -Scott
RE: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
> Perhaps that > particular > salesperson had not but he/she should have been briefed on it and > should > be familiar enough with deployment status to be able to talk > intelligently and honestly with a potential customer. > > I could buy that if it weren't for the fact that it took two days to come back with that answer. An off the cuff "wow, nobody has ever asked me that before, I need to check on it" would have been understandable for a new rep. Two days later coming back with "gee, we really haven't had anyone ask about that before" is bogus. I am not trying to beat anyone up here, the point is a general one for the providers out there. If you can't offer v6, say so, don't try to dance around it and pretend that customer is the only one on the planet with a migration plan because we know better.
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On 2011-03-01 22:16, Franck Martin wrote: > Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable > IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking > them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of > the month because they could not use this valuable time to find > customers with commissions... And that, hits the hammer right on the nail... Or to put it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc It always just depends on whose pocket it is, in the above example the blocker is the sales droid whose pockets won't get any deeper at the moment, in a lot of other cases it is the management types who don't get a direct benefit from it. And actually, who can blame them? Be sure to know that when time runs out though that they will come screaming at the techies, but then again, those types generally don't get the bonusses for that then to save the ass of the above types... Greets, Jeroen
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of the month because they could not use this valuable time to find customers with commissions... - Original Message - > From: "George Bonser" > To: "NANOG list" > Sent: Tuesday, 1 March, 2011 9:39:33 AM > Subject: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it! > Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier > 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the > UK. > They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK > rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we > were the very first to ask for it. > > Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but > when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your > responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for > another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very > first > ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is > just lame. > > George
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
Do please let me know which major global network provider this is. Off-list if you prefer. Christian On 1 Mar 2011, at 18:39, George Bonser wrote: > Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier > 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the UK. > They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK > rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we > were the very first to ask for it. > > Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but > when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your > responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for > another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very first > ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is > just lame. > > George > >
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
We've been the "first" for one of the oldest and best known Tier 1's in Metro Atlanta for quite some time It only took them 3 weeks to get the order right in their billing system and another 4.5 months to get it working. And I agree with the previous poster that in this day and age, it is unlikely that the sales group of a global provider would not have encountered such a request. If anything, they should have been hit with those kinds of requests starting ten years ago. Perhaps that particular salesperson had not but he/she should have been briefed on it and should be familiar enough with deployment status to be able to talk intelligently and honestly with a potential customer. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 07:46 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote: > Having worked both inside and outside the ISP industry, I wouldn't > necessarily trust a salesman to know a DSL from a leased line, let alone > IPv6 vs IPv4, nor to have remembered being asked about it before. > That's stuff for pre-sales engineers to handle, not the salesman. If IPv6 is being mentioned in mainstream news media including local and national TV news (which it has) then I would expect a salesperson of an ISP to also be somewhat knowledgeable enough to be able to able to at least spell it. And I agree with the previous poster that in this day and age, it is unlikely that the sales group of a global provider would not have encountered such a request. If anything, they should have been hit with those kinds of requests starting ten years ago. Perhaps that particular salesperson had not but he/she should have been briefed on it and should be familiar enough with deployment status to be able to talk intelligently and honestly with a potential customer. -- /*=[ Jake Khuon ]=+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| NETWORKS | +==*/
Re: Verizon Issues? East Coast US
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:47:39 -0500, Chris Tracy wrote > In both cases, mtr shows ~50% loss beginning at google- > gw.customer.alter.net (152.179.50.62), the first hop in AS15169. > It's clear that I must be losing more ICMP than TCP packets given > that google webpages come up fairly quickly, but youtube videos hang > ever since this started. > > Anybody else seeing this? I've been seeing ~50% packet loss to google from FiOS (WDC area) for a while now. Youtube completely unusable during the day for the most part, but that has been going on for months to tell you the truth. ~Randy
Re: Verizon Issues? East Coast US
From our experience and smoke pings on Verizon's alternet, they ALWAYS have issues. Which is why we moved away from them. -Bret On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Chris Tracy wrote: >>> Seeing some packet loss via Cogent. >>> www.internetpulse.net seems to be lighting up. >> I'm noticing it too. POP in Grand Rapids, circuit to Detroit. Packet loss, >> but no total loss of connectivity. > > Interesting. I began to notice trouble reaching google about a week ago from > 2 different east-cost Verizon FiOS lines -- one business and one residential > -- but my problem appears to be congestion at the AS701 <> AS15169 border. > I'm not noticing any loss across AS701. > > These problems began around 9am Eastern on Saturday Feb 19th -- see attached > smokeping graph. You can see the diurnal pattern in the loss -- packet loss > peaks between 9a-4p ET. Of course, I can get toipv6.google.com without any > loss at all via my HE tunnel! > > In both cases, mtr shows ~50% loss beginning at google-gw.customer.alter.net > (152.179.50.62), the first hop in AS15169. It's clear that I must be losing > more ICMP than TCP packets given that google webpages come up fairly quickly, > but youtube videos hang ever since this started. > > Anybody else seeing this? > > Thanks, > -Chris > > -- > Chris Tracy > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > >
Re: IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
On 03/01/2011 07:39 AM, George Bonser wrote: Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the UK. They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we were the very first to ask for it. Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very first ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is just lame. George Having worked both inside and outside the ISP industry, I wouldn't necessarily trust a salesman to know a DSL from a leased line, let alone IPv6 vs IPv4, nor to have remembered being asked about it before. That's stuff for pre-sales engineers to handle, not the salesman.
IPv6? Why, you are the first one to ask for it!
Fairly major global network provider likes to call themselves a "Tier 1". Asking about native IPv6 in one of their colo facilities in the UK. They say their US facilities won't be v6 capable until Q4 2011. The UK rep acted like it was the first he'd ever heard of it and implied we were the very first to ask for it. Note to providers: That might have worked a couple of years ago but when we hear that today, we know it is false. Please be honest in your responses to that question. If you aren't going to deploy it for another year or two, just say so. The notion that we are the very first ones to ever ask for it from a global provider in a major country is just lame. George
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
> > There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least. However, digital > > gear offers benefits, and some people want them. Others, like me, live > > in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you > > very carefully select your gear and shield your cables. Further, the > > digital phones support other features, such as the ability to manage > > multiple calls seamlessly, present Caller-ID reliably (even while you > > are on another call), etc. > > If you have issues with your wiring as bad as you describe then your > problem is with your in home wiring and possibly the wiring in your > area. Yes. The problem couldn't possibly be related to the AM/FM broadcasting mega-station with several towers just a short distance away, and it couldn't be related to poorly shielded electronics devices that are made as cheaply as possible... > Twisted pair inherently resists the kinds ingress your describing > if its properly installed and maintained. Of course this has nothing to > do with digital communications since any communication over your wiring > will be problematic. Twisted pair mildly deters RF interference. Give it enough and the whole thing's still an antenna... which is why shielding cables is part of the solution. > > I hate to tell *you*, but the LEC's and cable companies like to hand > > off POTS to small businesses too. > > Of course they do, but the discussion was specifically about residential > users. In the case of enterprise users there are lots of choices > ranging from "virtual" PBXs to local PBXs with proprietary digital phones. If you actually work with small businesses, you'll find that in many cases, products like TDS's XData or whatever Time Warner Cable's bundled business offering is called have been sold to small businesses and they like to hand off POTS. As in, in most cases, no other option exists. The problem here is that all of this discourages the advantages inherent in digital technology. POTS functions as a chokepoint in the realm of possibilities. Once you've converted the signal from digital to POTS and then reconverted it to digital, there's less flexibility. There's no particularly good reason that a VoIP-over-cable system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device. > > Your argument: "This works fine for most people therefore it will > > work for everyone." Is that really what you're saying? > > No, I asked what will make consumers choose digital connections today > for residential service rather than re-using their existing hand sets. In many cases, they don't care. I already answered things that *will* make some people choose digital connections. > >> What's broken for a residential user? > > That depends. I've got many years of experience with POTS. > > That's nice, but your experience doesn't track with what the market has > done. You describe specific wiring related problems as if they are > endemic to in home wiring and that's simply not true nor does a > "digital" hand set magically fix them if they are there. If anything > when a user has that many issues with in home wiring the lowest cost > solution is usually to install a wireless set, not because its "better" > but because its cheaper than fixing the in home wiring in many/most > cases for operators. Actually, a digital phone does. Dumping POTS for ISDN BRI eliminated numerous problems; most notably, the call quality went from wildly erratic with random radio interference, to crystal clear. ISDN BRI was essentially *just* substituting a digital path from the same CO to the same CPE over the same copper; at&t still had problems getting their systems to do things like presenting multiple calls to the same DN on the BRI (who knows why). So the switch from BRI to VoIP added other useful capabilities, such as multiple call appearances working properly. For your average residential user, the idea that someone can pick up a phone and not accidentally cut in on someone else's call is nearly stunning; to be able to accept multiple incoming calls or place more than one simultaneous outbound call is quite nice in some households. > > That's a matter of the consumer and their needs and wants. > > The market has very definitively answered this question so far which is > what confuses me about your argument. No, the market hasn't. What *has* happened is that the LEC's and cable carriers have deemed it a support nightmare to try to support random VoIP gear, and they'd rather sell $29/month VoIP-to-a-POTS-jack service because it's more profitable. That's an artificial constraint on the market, that's not actually the market. This is probably off-topic for NANOG at this point; I'm not sure where to redirect it to though. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass
RE: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.
OK. Please show me a “switch” that will terminate Layer 3 GRE tunnels.. If it does GRE then it is making Layer 3 forwarding decisions which is a router function. It may be built into a switch as well, but it is still a router. -- Leigh Porter From: tsi...@gmail.com [mailto:tsi...@gmail.com] Sent: 01 March 2011 15:10 To: sth...@nethelp.no; Leigh Porter Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware. is the requirment still 1-2 U switch? - Reply message - From: sth...@nethelp.no Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 4:44 am Subject: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware. To: Cc: > Juniper MX80 does all this. 1. It's not a switch (so don't expect "switch pricing"). 2. It doesn't offer 12 x 10GE ports. And I believe this has been mentioned earlier in the same thread... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.
is the requirment still 1-2 U switch? - Reply message - From: sth...@nethelp.no Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 4:44 am Subject: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware. To: Cc: > Juniper MX80 does all this. 1. It's not a switch (so don't expect "switch pricing"). 2. It doesn't offer 12 x 10GE ports. And I believe this has been mentioned earlier in the same thread... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On 03/01/2011 05:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: "William Pitcock" That is the same market Vonage is now targeting in the US, basically. National calling in the US is basically bundled with most calling plans now. I'm not convinced that many people use Vonage in the US - my experience with it was that it was not as reliable as the VOIP products offered through the various broadband providers I have had. Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV traffic on the link. Er, I'm not sure what the difference you're trying to make. Is IP running over an L2 with a SLA any less "IP" than one without a SLA? That's all the DOCSIS qos is: dynamically creating/tearing down enhanced L2 qos channels for rtp to run over. It's been quite a while since I've been involved, but what we were working on with CableLabs certainly was VoIP in every respect I can think of. | As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between "generally" and "ever".) There's is a great deal of overhead involved with the booking of resources for enhanced qos -- one big problem is that it adds quite a bit of latency to call set up. I'm sceptical at this point that it makes much difference for voice quality since voice traffic is such a tiny proportion of traffic in general -- a lot has changed in the last 15 years. Now video... I'm willing to believe that that enhanced qos still makes a difference there, but with youtube, netflix, etc, etc the genie isn't getting back in that bottle any time soon. So Moore's law is likely to have the final word there too making all of the docsis qos stuff ultimately irrelevant. Mike
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least. However, digital gear offers benefits, and some people want them. Others, like me, live in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you very carefully select your gear and shield your cables. Further, the digital phones support other features, such as the ability to manage multiple calls seamlessly, present Caller-ID reliably (even while you are on another call), etc. If you have issues with your wiring as bad as you describe then your problem is with your in home wiring and possibly the wiring in your area. Twisted pair inherently resists the kinds ingress your describing if its properly installed and maintained. Of course this has nothing to do with digital communications since any communication over your wiring will be problematic. I hate to tell *you*, but the LEC's and cable companies like to hand off POTS to small businesses too. Of course they do, but the discussion was specifically about residential users. In the case of enterprise users there are lots of choices ranging from "virtual" PBXs to local PBXs with proprietary digital phones. Your argument: "This works fine for most people therefore it will work for everyone." Is that really what you're saying? No, I asked what will make consumers choose digital connections today for residential service rather than re-using their existing hand sets. What's broken for a residential user? That depends. I've got many years of experience with POTS. That's nice, but your experience doesn't track with what the market has done. You describe specific wiring related problems as if they are endemic to in home wiring and that's simply not true nor does a "digital" hand set magically fix them if they are there. If anything when a user has that many issues with in home wiring the lowest cost solution is usually to install a wireless set, not because its "better" but because its cheaper than fixing the in home wiring in many/most cases for operators. That's a matter of the consumer and their needs and wants. The market has very definitively answered this question so far which is what confuses me about your argument. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
offered through the various broadband providers I have had. Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV traffic on the link. No, this incorrect. Packet Cable most certainly _is_ VOIP (a MGCP variant to be precise until 2.0 after which it is SIP). While a few providers, usually for non-technical reasons, did deploy an entirely separate set of downstream and upstream interfaces that is far from the norm. AFAIK the only top 20 MSO to do so in scale was Charter and I don't know if they continue that today. Comcast, the largest cable telephone provider certainly does not nor do providers need to since any Packetcable CMTS and EMTA combo offers reliable prioritization in the same channel(s) as the normal data path. So of course Vonage and other VoN products will be less rugged. As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between "generally" and "ever".) As I said, this second channel doesn't exist in almost all cases (its not cost effective nor needed in almost all cases). Having said that over the top VOIP providers do suffer in comparison because they don't get the benefit of prioritization in the local cable plant. Cheers, -- jra -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
- Original Message - > From: "William Pitcock" > That is the same market Vonage is now targeting in the US, basically. > National calling in the US is basically bundled with most calling plans > now. I'm not convinced that many people use Vonage in the US - my > experience with it was that it was not as reliable as the VOIP > products offered through the various broadband providers I have had. Let us be clear: if you're getting "digital telephone" service from a cable television provider, it is *not* "VoIP", in the usage in which most speakers mean that term -- "Voice Over Internet" is what they should be saying, and cable-phone isn't that; the voice traffic rides over a separate DOCSiS channel, protected from both the Internet and CATV traffic on the link. So of course Vonage and other VoN products will be less rugged. As I recall, this questionably fair competitive advantage has been looked into by ... someone. (Cablecos won't permit competing VoIP services to utilize this protected channel, somewhere between "generally" and "ever".) Cheers, -- jra
Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.
> Juniper MX80 does all this. 1. It's not a switch (so don't expect "switch pricing"). 2. It doesn't offer 12 x 10GE ports. And I believe this has been mentioned earlier in the same thread... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Switch with 10 Gig and GRE support in hardware.
Juniper MX80 does all this. On 1 Mar 2011, at 01:07, "Jeff Hartley" wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM, George Bonser wrote: >>> On 2/18/11 6:30 AM, "Matt Newsom" wrote: >>> I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12 X >> 10GE ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in hardware. Does anyone have a suggestion that might fit. Keep in mind >> I >>> am looking for something in the 1-2U range and not a chassis. >> >> Hard to tell from the data sheet: >> >> http://www.xbridgeservices.com/images/files/7450_ess.pdf >> >> But it looks like the Alcatel-Lucent 7450 ESS-1 might do it. Not sure >> if it has 4, 8, or 12 10G ports, though. The data sheet is confusing to >> me and it would be oversubscribed but that might be OK in your >> applications. >> >> >> >> > > > Brocade TurboIron 24X fits all of those criteria. > > -Jeff >
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
On 01/03/2011 04:24, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Oddly enough the meeting NOC is in the business of providing services to customers and we generally assume that to be with the highest availability and minimum breakage feasible under the circumstances... That is exactly my point. [...] I am mystified. Don't be mystified. I'm just frustrated that ipv6 isn't further down the line in terms of basic plug-n-play functionality. And it's easier to create straw men arguments and hurl blame at the IETF / vendors / everyone else than sit down and try to work through the problems. I'm human. So yes, I'm fully aware that the straw man of suggesting that ipv4 be disabled at an ietf meeting would cause breakage for reasons unrelated to the ra/dhcp mess, and more to do with lack of endpoint availability / operating system problems / etc (all unrelated to the ietf). However, that doesn't mean that I feel less frustrated that mistakes of the past are coming back to haunt us. Nick
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Hi, On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:25:23 + (GMT) Tim Franklin wrote: > > I do not live over there, I have never seen a Vonage or Magic jack > > or any other VoIP service ad on TV in the UK, ever. > > Vonage *are* advertising on UK TV. Hardly the carpet-bombing the OP > suggests is the case in the US, but they are doing something. > > > It is quite a different market here. I can get POTS services over > > the same copper from, I'd say, about 5 different companies. Maybe > > more, I have not counted. I guess the competition already available > > on the copper would largely preclude anything but the cheapest VoIP > > service. > > For UK national calls, which pretty much all the POTS providers are > offering for "free" (read "bundled"), I tend to agree - especially > given that the POTS providers who *aren't* BT (Residential) are > largely having to lease at least the last mile copper from BT > (OpenReach). The Vonage TV ads that I've seen in the UK are pitched > at offering cheap / free / bundled international calls, and the > target market for that I believe is both different and smaller. That is the same market Vonage is now targeting in the US, basically. National calling in the US is basically bundled with most calling plans now. I'm not convinced that many people use Vonage in the US - my experience with it was that it was not as reliable as the VOIP products offered through the various broadband providers I have had. William
Re: What vexes VoIP users?
> I do not live over there, I have never seen a Vonage or Magic jack or > any other VoIP service ad on TV in the UK, ever. Vonage *are* advertising on UK TV. Hardly the carpet-bombing the OP suggests is the case in the US, but they are doing something. > It is quite a different market here. I can get POTS services over the > same copper from, I'd say, about 5 different companies. Maybe more, I > have not counted. I guess the competition already available on the > copper would largely preclude anything but the cheapest VoIP service. For UK national calls, which pretty much all the POTS providers are offering for "free" (read "bundled"), I tend to agree - especially given that the POTS providers who *aren't* BT (Residential) are largely having to lease at least the last mile copper from BT (OpenReach). The Vonage TV ads that I've seen in the UK are pitched at offering cheap / free / bundled international calls, and the target market for that I believe is both different and smaller. Regards, Tim.
