Jim Gettys writes:
> Now that I have mitigated the bufferbloat disaster in my home cable
> service via bandwidth shaping, Skype works sooo much better for
> me. This is what devices such as Ooma are doing. Unfortunately, it
> means you have to defeat features such as Comcast's PowerBoost.
Actu
This has nothing to do with Vonage and likes that market to consumer - their
devices are locked so the consumer is locked into the services that
Vonage/MagicJack/etc provides. They are not the companies that are going to
eat lunch of cable companies and old school telcos as their business model
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:08:36PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
>> No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
>> system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
>>
>> The reason is purely business - it will destroy their own voice service
>> user
On 03/01/2011 04:32 AM, William Pitcock wrote:
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
Depends on the network, but we use private IPs on the eMTA side of the CM.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Alexander O. Yuriev [mailto:alex-lists-na...@yuriev.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 2:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
> There's no part
On 3/3/2011 3:47 PM, Alexander O. Yuriev wrote:
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.
No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to
> 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.
No, there's no particulary good technological reason why VOIP-over-cable
system shouldn't be able to hand off calls to an arbitrary SIP device.
The reason is pure
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said:
> > 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 t
, I was not aware of that, what a management and maintenance nightmare. Do
they still do this?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:49 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users
, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM
> To: frnk...@iname.com
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
>
> Frank,
>
> No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the
> concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be
>
fault names) may not be representative
of other implementations.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:36 AM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On 03/02/2011 06:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
On 03/01/2011 11:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
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
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Frank,
No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the
concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be
using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and
upstream channels which a few ope
utrality concerns.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:40 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: 'Scott Helms'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Fra
On 03/02/2011 06:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP
packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP
signalling and interaction with the telephony gateway. Ther
M for voice and the remaining
QAMs for data).
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Scott Helms [mailto:khe...@ispalliance.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 9:27 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What vexes VoIP users?
Frank,
No, not all. There seems to be some
On 3/2/2011 10:40 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said:
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?
So the
"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.
Hmm, I d
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:55:16 CST, Frank Bulk said:
> 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?
So the cable company carves out a protected flow for its
Frank,
No, not all. There seems to be some confusion here between the
concept of PacketCable flows which everyone _should_ (but aren't) be
using to prioritize their voice traffic and separate downstream and
upstream channels which a few operators use for voice traffic only.
On 3/2/2011
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
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Thomas"
> Yes, really. The only difference was which L2 channels the RTP
> packets were flowed onto, which was determined by the MGCP/SIP
> signalling and interaction with the telephony gateway. There
> is a **very** complicated state machine that dea
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'
esday, 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
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'
- 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 b
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
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, Ja
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 l
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
- 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-pa
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 w
- 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 ca
rom 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 su
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* "VoI
- 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 In
> > 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
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 us
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 phon
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-
- 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 tha
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
> 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
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Leigh Porter
> wrote:
>> Exactly the point I made earlier. POTS is simple, it does what it does and
>> it is pretty good at it. Now, in the background, you have a whole lot of
>> engineering. But I would trust
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Leigh Porter
wrote:
> Exactly the point I made earlier. POTS is simple, it does what it does and it
> is pretty good at it. Now, in the background, you have a whole lot of
> engineering. But I would trust a DMS100 far more than any of the stuff that
> routes IP.
On 2/28/11 10:37 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
>> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>>> this list, not my mother.
My mother has comcast voice... they d
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
> it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
> normal LD charges. Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
> unlimited VoIP servi
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
Sad. There are definitely LTE-data-only VOIP handsets in other
deployments.
Of course. Silly me. :-)
Couldn't fine Owens original post, so I'll ask here.
Which are these handsets? Could you prov
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Joe Greco"
>
>> Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
>> physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
>> back to a real CO with a real battery room these da
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> > TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet, Owen.
> >
> > The only US carrier with LTE deployed is VZW, and their only
> > *handset* with LTE is the not-yet-quite-shipped HTC Thunderbolt...
> >
> That's the US market. We are, as usual, traditionall
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Greco"
> Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
> physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
> back to a real CO with a real battery room these days when they're
> deploying new copper. So if you have a ho
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> This "no intermediate gear" term, it does not mean what you think it
> means...
>
> Loading coils, Bridge-Taps, WDFs, Protection Blocks, etc. all could
> be classified as intermediate gear. Many of these things have been
> the bane of DSL inst
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Joe Greco"
>
> > With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
> > status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
> > the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
> > conditions, etc.
> >
>
On 2/28/2011 15:35, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> 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 s
On 28 Feb 2011, at 23:15, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Joe Greco"
>
>> With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
>> status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
>> the ability to handle multiple calls intelligentl
> > So let's look for a rational comparison instead.
> >
> > Take your CD player's analog audio output and run it fifty feet,
> > making sure to route it along some nice fluorescent lights. Even
> > with a good shielded cable, analog signal is notorious for picking
> > up noise.
> >
> > Now take y
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> Pretty soon, cell phones will, essentially, be VOIP devices. In fact,
> some already are.
>
> In fact, one could argue that LTE cell phones are in essence what VOIP
> will be when it grows up.
TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet, Owen.
The
- Original Message -
> From: "Joe Greco"
> With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
> status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
> the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
> conditions, etc.
>
> When you throw t
So then let's argue that ILEC-delivered POTS is digital too, because it went
on fiber to the local SLC hut...
It is, at least in some cases, and its even VOIP in a few (Occam BLC's
for example). Having said that its almost never derived voice of any
type into the home because of life line req
> >From: Joe Greco =0A>I have no idea why anyone would be =
> paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone=0A>line, unless you like giving them y=
> our money or something.=0A=0AIn my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the P=
> OTS line is the one that works =0Aduring a=A0bad=A0power outage, and has qu=
>
> On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
> >>> People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a
> >>> VoIP device into the back of their router.
> > Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
>From: Joe Greco
>I have no idea why anyone would be paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone
>line, unless you like giving them your money or something.
In my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the POTS line is the one that works
during a bad power outage, and has qualitatively different failure mo
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:
> > On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
> >>> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people
> on
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>
>> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>>
>>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>>> this list, not my mother.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Leigh
>>>
>>>
On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP
device into the back of their router.
Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
most of the Comcast
It's only an issue if you have a single gateway which is serving up multiple
public addresses.
SIP is not the only traversal that breaks in this environment, but, it does
choose to break in some
of the most interesting (especially to troubleshoot when you don't know that's
what is causing
the p
> They are in the US.
>
> Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making
> it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February
> 16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
> > People ar
> --==_Exmh_1298918263_6182P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
> > On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> > > VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
> > > this list, not my mother.
>
> > B
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>
>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>> this list, not my mother.
>>
>> --
>> Leigh
>>
>>
> Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't b
Any idea how to workaround the uverse broken alg? I've had to do some fun hacks
to work around it. Sometimes I can reboot or crash them with the cisco notify
for config check.
Jared Mauch
On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Bret Palsson wrote:
> Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.
>
> -Bret
>
> On Fe
I've found that sip alg on devices is badly broken and must be disabled. This
is true of ios and various consumer electronics devices. Nat traversal for
multiple devices is not an issue in any case I have seen.
Turning off "smart nat" usually solves it.
Jared Mauch
On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:34 P
Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG agent installed that's
> trying to proxy the SIP traffic?
n ALG agent installed
that's trying to proxy the SIP traffic?
(Yes, I hate ALGs. They are evil.)
Nathan
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:26 AM
> To: Bret Palsson
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subjec
Sorry I didn't include this in the last email...
We have large clients who have phones registered on multiples of public IPs
from the same location. Works no problem. We do some trickery on our side to
make that happen, but I thought all VoIP companies would do that.
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at
We haven't run into that issue and have very large clients.
I'm interested to find out where you may have run into that issue?
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works
> particularly
> well (if at all) in
Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works
particularly
well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.
You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they
consistently
get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
On 28 Feb 2011, at 19:03, Jameel Akari wrote:
> Sounds very different indeed. In the US, it's basically "your local Ma Bell
> derivative, or something not-POTs." Anecodtally, as of this morning we just
> dropped one of our POTS lines for the cable company's alternative. Cost
> dropped from $
Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
vex |veks|
verb [ trans. ]
make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial matters
: the memory of the conversation still vexed him | [
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this
list, not my mother.
They are in the US.
Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making
it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February
16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not, en-masse
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
>> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>>> this list, not my mother.
>
>> Baloney...if that was the
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:29, Bret Clark wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>>
>> VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
>> this list, not my mother.
>>
>> --
>> Leigh
>>
>>
> Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be w
On 2/28/2011 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for
people on this list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines decr
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
> On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> > VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
> > this list, not my mother.
> Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
> whining about POT's l
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this
list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
;
> Juergen.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nat...@atlasnetworks.us]
>> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:33 PM
>> To: NANOG list
>> Subject: RE: What vexes VoIP users?
>>
>> Some provider woes:
>>
&
years ago).
Juergen.
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nat...@atlasnetworks.us]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:33 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: What vexes VoIP users?
>
> Some provider woes:
>
> FAX over VOIP is a PITA.
Some provider woes:
FAX over VOIP is a PITA. I've not yet seen an ATA or softswitch that handled
it reliably.
E911 for mobile devices sucks. Regulations, and the E911 system, do not seem
to have the flexibility for handling this in a seamless way.
Call routing (on a more global scale) sucks.
OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...
For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs}
are most vexing?
For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
89 matches
Mail list logo
