I totally agree with you in principal, but the problem is that
the issue is not on our side. It is on the carrier side. I'm
making an assumption here, but if out of many carriers we use
only one displays these symptoms then something is wrong with
THEIR system - not ours.
In other words - I can't
Trixter wrote:
> its the biz list so this is implicitly allowed :) Generally you only see
complaints when people post the same thing over and over with a high
frequency.
Thanks for the reply - I've seen so many emails regarding SPAM lately.. I
didn't want to be categorized as one of "those guys"
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 02:13 -0500, Michael S. White wrote:
> Sorry in advance if this seems like SPAM to anyone... We are moving
> and I have a few things that I am trying to unload
its the biz list so this is implicitly allowed :) Generally you only
see complaints when people post the same thing
On 1/5/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
>
> So does the $100 not include the loop, or is the $100/meg a figure that
> fully amortises the bandwidth and facility?
>
I hate having to cite averages but I also do not feel comfortable
discussing actual pricing in public.
Bandwidth only, no loop necess
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On 1/5/09, Nitzan Kon wrote:.
>> It all depends on who you use as your colo facility and what
>> pricing models they offer. There are facilities with FAR lower
>> bandwidth rates out there.
>
> Clearly there is a misunderstanding here. This bandwidth is not a
> b
On 1/5/09, Ken Rice wrote:
> We get prices in the 20 to 40 range not including cross connects for 100meg
> commits.. I have heard as little as 14/meg from large resellers in Boston
> and other places giving direct to L3 Ports...
>
> And Cogent these days I have heard under $8/meg on 100meg comm
--- On Mon, 1/5/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> On the flipside, AMS-IX charges something like 2500
> euro/month for a 10gbps link or something
Yeah, I saw figures like that when I was looking for a European
server. It's insane :) (in a good way)
> But then the same concept still applies,
Alex Balashov wrote:
> their discrepancies with their upstream carriers (yes, they use SIP
> trunks) average an error margin of maybe 1.2%.
But I really think this has to do with rounding discrepancies I can't
put my finger on. The calls are going into a tandem switch that spits
out the CDRs
On 1/5/09, Nitzan Kon wrote:.
> It all depends on who you use as your colo facility and what
> pricing models they offer. There are facilities with FAR lower
> bandwidth rates out there.
Clearly there is a misunderstanding here. This bandwidth is not a
blend from some colo (not that that's n
On 1/5/09, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > However, if the carrier has IP endpoints in Amsterdam, why
> > not test it from various points in Europe?
>
>
> This is a little pointless IMHO because routing inside Europe
> is usually done via insanely high
Ken Rice wrote:
> And Cogent these days I have heard under $8/meg on 100meg commit...
>
> (not that I would necessarily want to depend on cogent for my ITSP heh... A
> multi-homed network with customers whos ISPs are single homed to cogent its
> not a bad idea (and god forbid cogent and level3 de
Sorry in advance if this seems like SPAM to anyone... We are moving and I
have a few things that I am trying to unload
in an attempt to get a few more Herman Miller chairs for the new digs. Open
to direct trades for chairs too. Hoping to get
enough for 2 more Mirras and an Aeron...
Here is what
Most of my response to this has already been captured in some form by
Kristian and Ken, but just to sum up:
1. I didn't say that these types of signaling errata don't occur. They
do. They should be treated as a cost of doing business. If they
account for a nontrivial percentage of lost reven
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:33 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> In other words, if a provider tests well from one point in
> Europe - chances are they'll be OK from anywhere within the
> EU.
>
that may change, in amsterdam this year they are deploying residential
gigabit fiber to most of the city. The pl
>>
>> That bandwidth price seems a bit excessive even for current 'quality'
>> bandwidth providers... At those rates you can get some pretty good bandwidth
>> at much higher commits and spend the same money... Maybe its just the
>> facility you are in but damn that seems high
>>
>
> 'Twas an
On 1/5/09, Ken Rice wrote:
>
> That bandwidth price seems a bit excessive even for current 'quality'
> bandwidth providers... At those rates you can get some pretty good bandwidth
> at much higher commits and spend the same money... Maybe its just the
> facility you are in but damn that seems h
--- On Mon, 1/5/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> How much does your bandwidth cost? Around here (Tampa, FL
> - carrier neutral facility, no loop) we pay (on average) about
> $100/MB. 10MB minimums, multiple upstreams, other random fees
> and you are at thousands of dollars.
It all depends on
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> However, if the carrier has IP endpoints in Amsterdam, why
> not test it from various points in Europe?
This is a little pointless IMHO because routing inside Europe
is usually done via insanely high bandwidth European rings
where you literally g
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:29 -0500, voip-aster...@maximumcrm.com wrote:
> I'm surprised that these providers still manage to be in business.
>
> I would never deal with any provider that would require me to sign NDAs
> before I become a customer. Just can't be bothered with the additional
> paper
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 00:30 -0500, Alex Balashov wrote:
> I agree with you completely on a philosophical level. However, as Brett
> pointed out, this is government and a law conceived in 1994; when it
> comes to technology policy and management, government couldn't manage
> its way out of a pa
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:23 -0600, Ken Rice wrote:
> > --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> >
> >> Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the
> >> carriers you normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for
> >> you be considered "tipping off" the customer being recorded?
> >
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 23:12 -0600, Ken Rice wrote:
> I have seen this time and time again and it typically is 1 of 2 things that
> cause this problem... Either the buyers gear or the sellers gear is dropping
> calls for a variety of reasons...
>
> However "missed a bye" is a pretty poor excuse for
Ken Rice wrote:
>> From: Kristian Kielhofner
>> Reply-To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:22:03 -0500
>> To: , Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>>
>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Experimental/new VoIP rate search engine.
>>
>
Ken Rice wrote:
> Re-invites in more cases then not cause more issues then they are worth...
Bingo.
The problem for Asterisk users is "directrtpsetup" in Asterisk doesn't
work at this time, for some mind-boggling reason. So, if you want to do
media release with Asterisk, re-invites are your
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 21:21 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
>
> > Ok then, lets look at this claim a bit. I live in
> > Amsterdam right now.
> > Are your base metrics of any value to me if they are all
> > tested from the
> > US?
>
> Actually, I ha
Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
>> Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the
>> carriers you normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for
>> you be considered "tipping off" the customer being recorded?
>
> I *seriously* doubt the makers of CALEA t
> From: Kristian Kielhofner
> Reply-To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:22:03 -0500
> To: , Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Experimental/new VoIP rate search engine.
>
> How much does your ban
> Would such providers be automatically banned or would there be some sort
> of extenuating circumstances based on business model? Not, mind you,
> that I ever foresee such providers as displaying their pricing to anyone
> (especially since their pricing falls under copious NDAs for potential
> CLI
> From: Nitzan Kon
> Reply-To: , Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk
> Discussion
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:34:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Experimental/new VoIP rate search engine.
>
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Al
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> Ok then, lets look at this claim a bit. I live in
> Amsterdam right now.
> Are your base metrics of any value to me if they are all
> tested from the
> US?
Actually, I have servers in the east coast, Amsterdam, and
soon the west coast - so i
On 1/5/09, Nitzan Kon wrote:
>
> OK, here's some statistics for the month of December for
> the carrier in question:
>
> Our record shows:
> 100,504 calls
> 130,740:27 minutes total
>
> Their record shows:
> 100,161 calls (probably just time difference here
> 179,811.28 minutes total
>
> T
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 20:34 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
> > Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the
> > carriers you normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for
> > you be considered "tipping off" the customer being recorded?
>
> I *
I have seen this time and time again and it typically is 1 of 2 things that
cause this problem... Either the buyers gear or the sellers gear is dropping
calls for a variety of reasons...
However "missed a bye" is a pretty poor excuse for the situation... BYEs are
acknowledged... And resent a numbe
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, SIP wrote:
> One note on this: we've worked with three different
> providers over the last 2 years that change their rates (and
> rate centers) weekly. Every single WEEK, we get a list of
> new rates and rate centers.
> Would such providers be automatically banned or would th
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Many of them have claimed they lose a ton of money from
> accounting problems caused by the unreliability of signaling
> (as though SIP doesn't have reliable retransmission of transactional
> messages or something) but they've never shown me any numbe
To clarify, many running ITSPs or even 'wholesale' shops do not have a clear
understanding of what they need to do to make things work. If you cannot
account for your minutes (inventory) then you either have the wrong
accounting system or the wrong technologies feeding the data into your
accounting
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> The statistical loss expectancy of business impact from
> call length
> computation errors resulting from never getting SIP BYEs
> and whatnot
> seems far lower than the cost of dealing with media.
I disagree. I will not name names, but we have a spec
On 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> well iax is not a proper carrier grade protocol period. And I will even
> explain why I said that :) IAX has all traffic, media and signalling
> goto the same port. This means that even if you have 1000 cores in your
> system, the reception can on
Even better is a system that can do both... Direct RTP with the option of
pulling the RTP thru your network when required... This will typically take
care of the CALEA problem along with those companies out there that offer a
type of CALEA "insurance"... Most of us have to deal with some sort of me
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the
> carriers you normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for
> you be considered "tipping off" the customer being recorded?
I *seriously* doubt the makers of CALEA thought it this far.
Hell, I'd
Thanks for clarifying this.
So, I guess the real answer is, weigh the statistical loss expectancy of
the (Probability of getting a CALEA claim) x (fine exposure for
noncompliance) and pick the lesser of that and paying for 20x the
bandwidth and 500x the equipment to actually be properly equippe
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:05 -0500, Alex Balashov wrote:
> That's true. But I do think these CALEA requests can be serviced by the
> upstream carriers even with LCR more often than not.
>
yeah except that it can be much more difficult. For example acct123
needs to have taps placed on it. Howev
On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>
> I figured you would.
>
> I just get beat up for this viewpoint all the time from the Paranoidal
> Ones, and continue to struggle understand their reasoning. Many of them
> have claimed they lose a ton of money from accounting problems caused by
> the unreli
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:04 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> - Supporting IAX. No Tier 1 (more like the equipment they use) will
> take IAX. If your "provider" is using IAX, your media is most likely
> ultimately being proxied to SIP/RTP somewhere. Best of luck to you.
well iax is not a prop
Can you clarify exactly what you mean here?
On Jan 4, 2009, at 10:50 PM, "Alexander Lopez"
wrote:
>>
>> I just get beat up for this viewpoint all the time from the
>> Paranoidal
>> Ones, and continue to struggle understand their reasoning. Many of
>> them
>> have claimed they lose a ton o
>
> I just get beat up for this viewpoint all the time from the Paranoidal
> Ones, and continue to struggle understand their reasoning. Many of them
> have claimed they lose a ton of money from accounting problems caused by
> the unreliability of signaling (as though SIP doesn't have reliable
> r
Nitzan Kon wrote:
> I totally agree, and have the same fear of bait & switch tactics.
>
> One thought I had to prevent this is to let providers know that
> a condition for being placed/displayed on the site will be
> "static" rates where once submitted rates will have to be valid
> for at least a
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>>
>> > - Billing paranoia (I have to be in the media stream)
>>
>>
>> I may just be an idiot, but I still think this is stupid and haven't
>> changed my position after a year or two of polemicising about
On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > - Billing paranoia (I have to be in the media stream)
>
>
> I may just be an idiot, but I still think this is stupid and haven't
> changed my position after a year or two of polemicising about it.
>
> The statistical loss expect
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> - Billing paranoia (I have to be in the media stream)
I may just be an idiot, but I still think this is stupid and haven't
changed my position after a year or two of polemicising about it.
The statistical loss expectancy of business impact from call length
computat
On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > I know you (Alex) are a proponent of direct media handoff (as am I).
>
>
> Are you suggesting I should not be?
Of course not!
> Personally, I can't understand why anyone would ever shunt customer
> media into their network
Also, we're talking about wholesale O/T here. Wouldn't the CALEA
request go to the retail VoIP provider first? It seems generally
reasonable to handle media if you are doing retail VoIP for the reason
you outline. My question was more, why would you do it if you're just
selling trunking, asi
DISCLAIMER: Much of the following rant assumes ideal (typical)
internet conditions.
On 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
>
>
> which is why I suggested looking at the media gateways, which are the
> rtp endpoint addresses.
Sure, but how many providers are actually capable of doing this:
That's true. But I do think these CALEA requests can be serviced by the
upstream carriers even with LCR more often than not.
Would disabling LCR and forcing the route to one of the carriers you
normally use that will do the CALEA tapping for you be considered
"tipping off" the customer being r
voip-aster...@maximumcrm.com wrote:
>> There's no easy money. You won't last long in pure resale. You have to
>> add value. At the moment, there's a compelling value proposition to
>> offer relative to other VoIP O/T & ITSP call shops in better
>> engineering, better peering, better tools, and b
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 21:36 -0500, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > I know you (Alex) are a proponent of direct media handoff (as am I).
>
> Are you suggesting I should not be?
>
> Personally, I can't understand why anyone would ever shunt customer
> media into their ne
> There's no easy money. You won't last long in pure resale. You have to
> add value. At the moment, there's a compelling value proposition to
> offer relative to other VoIP O/T & ITSP call shops in better
> engineering, better peering, better tools, and better rates.
>
> But how long can you be
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> I know you (Alex) are a proponent of direct media handoff (as am I).
Are you suggesting I should not be?
Personally, I can't understand why anyone would ever shunt customer
media into their network except to work out intractable NAT issues.
Otherwise, I can't com
The executive-sized soundbite version of my post:
There's no easy money. You won't last long in pure resale. You have to
add value. At the moment, there's a compelling value proposition to
offer relative to other VoIP O/T & ITSP call shops in better
engineering, better peering, better tools,
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> I am thinking of consultants that install systems, who may
> provide the support themselves, large institutions that have
> their own IT departments (most businesses do not have one,
> they are too small to justify it), etc.
I totally agr
Alex Balashov wrote:
> There are survivors, of course; folks that hang on providing
> higher-margin business services (whatever the justification for $150/mo
> "business DSL" that is the exact same product as residential, some
> businesses are willing to buy into it), value-added service
Ah,
Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 18:09 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>> On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>>> I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
>>> ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
>>> race to the bot
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> I know you (Alex) are a proponent of direct media handoff (as am I).
> If properly architected this can work out quite well for the end user
> simply because most of these Tier 1 backbone providers/VoIP providers
> are so well peered with last mile providers, especi
On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> >> I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
> >> ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
> >> race to the bottom.
> >>
> >
> > Ag
I agree. But there's a difference between Users and Customers. I always
thought this list will give us a clearer picture from the "Customer" view
point, to weed out 'LOT' of crooks from here. Another good idea would be
sharing a list of providers - typically like - "We are calling cards
providers e
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 19:53 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> My concern would be various tricks providers could use to fool any
> IP only automated tools. There are classic examples of providers
> providing gateways to ping, etc that *clearly* have ICMP optimized and
> may even be in differen
On 1/4/09, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > Getting back on topic, will there be any sort of ranking
> > for quality?
>
>
> I would love to maintain a separate table/search based on
> quality. The real question though is how do you quantify
> "quality
Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
>> ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
>> race to the bottom.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> This current race to the bottom, while some
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 15:58 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/4/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
>
> > Getting back on topic, will there be any sort of ranking
> > for quality?
>
> I would love to maintain a separate table/search based on
> quality. The real question though is how do you
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Chris Bagnall wrote:
> Any plans to allow providers to upload rates in currencies
> apart from USD? For example, I'd love to upload our
> rates, but since everything is priced in GBP, it'd be
> inaccurate from the moment I uploaded simply due to the
> vagaries of the GBP to US
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 16:16 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> > This can be a good thing for customers that do not need
> > support, they can get a lower cost per month, and the business
> > still remains profitable that is providing the service.
>
> I agree. In essence over 90% of customers never reall
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Sandeep Kanao wrote:
> I believe customer is always the winner. I suggest let users
> vote for the provider for 1. Quality 2. Support and 3. Rates.
The problem with this is:
1. Users are not objective. They typically have experience with
only 1-2 providers so voting "their"
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> > - Customer support will be non existent (or
> worthless). How are you
> > paying for it when your markup is %10 or less
> (whatever it may be)?
> >
> or it will be a pay to call service. Each customer support
> call will be like a MSFT cu
I believe customer is always the winner. I suggest let users vote for the
provider for 1. Quality 2. Support and 3. Rates. I have burnt in the past.
Several providers created 'the best' test routes, but once (pre) paid, no
customer service was available and the routes were switched :-)
One of the
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Karl Fife wrote:
> Not very exhaustive. I am a voicepulse customer, and my
> rate is $.008 per minute to terminate to +1312565.
> Fully ONE HALF the cost of the lowest provider.
>
> -Karl
Patience. :) I only started this project a couple of days
ago. I'll see if I can g
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> Getting back on topic, will there be any sort of ranking
> for quality?
I would love to maintain a separate table/search based on
quality. The real question though is how do you quantify
"quality". Maybe through user reviews, although those tend
On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 18:09 -0500, Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> > I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
> > ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
> > race to the bottom.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> This
Not very exhaustive. I am a voicepulse customer, and my rate is $.008 per
minute to terminate to +1312565.
Fully ONE HALF the cost of the lowest provider.
-Karl
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Bagnall"
To: "'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'"
Sent: Sunday
On 1/4/09, Alex Balashov wrote:
> I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
> ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
> race to the bottom.
>
Agreed.
This current race to the bottom, while somewhat inevitable, is not
necessarily a good
> Hello providers! (those of you that are)
> Due to the lack of one being available (that I know of),
> I decided to start a VoIP rate search engine.
Interesting idea. Others have already mentioned the quality vs. price issue.
Any plans to allow providers to upload rates in currencies apart from
Well, yes and no-
The lowest rates are almost always grey routes (lower quality),
so it makes sense paying a little more to use a white or premium
route - if you really get a white/premium route.
Simply paying a higher rate does not ensure you're getting a better
route, as some providers mark up
I totally agree, and have the same fear of bait & switch tactics.
One thought I had to prevent this is to let providers know that
a condition for being placed/displayed on the site will be
"static" rates where once submitted rates will have to be valid
for at least a month. And any provider caugh
Shouldn't rate and reliability (aka as quality ??), go hand in hand. I won't
mind spending an extra cent for a reliable provider. But, none the less, its
a good start and the list will be useful for many like us.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> Well, how to put it.. exposure
I think if this gets traction you will see a lot of providers doing
ultra-low bait-and-switch rates. Most cannot afford to be in a price
race to the bottom.
On Jan 4, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> Well, how to put it.. exposure is exposure. As a provider you'd
> want to get your name
Well, how to put it.. exposure is exposure. As a provider you'd
want to get your name out there even if your rates are not as
competitive as others.
Not to mention that if a provider does have such agreements
in place that allow them to achieve low rates to a certain
destination - having those rat
Nitzan,
Interesting idea. I wonder, though, what incentive exists for
providers to list their rates in a context where they are explicitly
bidding against others.
Seems like the best rates come from negotiating discounts off the
public termination rate deck (something far from all providers
Agreed. The plan is to add some indicators whether the provider
offers SIP, IAX, what type of routes, pay-as-you-go available,
etc. Maybe do it graphically/icons so it all fits in there
without clogging up with too much information. :)
--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Sandeep Kanao wrote:
> From: Sandeep Ka
Great site. May be providers should also let us know if the route is white,
grey and if there's any commitments. Many of the providers may offer for
less, but in fine prints they will ask commitments.
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Nitzan Kon wrote:
> Hello providers! (those of you that are)
>
Hello providers! (those of you that are)
Due to the lack of one being available (that I know of),
I decided to start a VoIP rate search engine. The idea is
to throw in as many providers into the database as we can,
and let the search functionality find the cheapest routes
for any given destinati
We're looking to send traffic to someone with a decent price on cellular calls
in Israel -- other destinations are of interest as well.
Please respond by private email with information -- thanks!
Yours,
Yaakov Menken
http://www.capalon.com
888-CAPALON (227-2566)
410-985-1211 direct
men...@capal
90 matches
Mail list logo
