March 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by Paul Vixie 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

a couple of off-the-wall notes. i'm bouncing off of stephen sprunk here, but in fact these notes have very little to do with his excellent article: > Toll-quality voice requires ... ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS empire actually cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality voice is fine. (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the USA!) sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not telephony over ip, it's voice over ip), we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!") because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from "voice". the solution of course is to use computers rather than "phones" and to use domain names rather than "phone numbers". "old money" has a way of flattening the decline of old technology... until the cliff, that is. > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter and high > coast-to-coast latency, ... just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do we mean when we talk about the "public internet"? my first thought was lisbon-to-sakhalin, rather than seattle-to-miami. given that the public internet isn't even centered in let alone predominated by north america any more, and that some of the best (and/or loudest) speakers at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) are from outside north america, it seems to me that the "reform party" should be thinking of a new name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over "nanog governance"... (i'm one of those who loves merit in their secretariat role but who thinks that issues of list/conference content/moderation, budgets, program committee membership, and overall policy should be handled representationally, like at ARIN.) (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing list, go find out, plz.) > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent QoS or within the same > general area of the country, you can afford a larger transmit buffer without > risking the "walkie talkie" effect. all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. that's a lot more than 125ms. > > I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of > > that with fragmentation and intervleaving? > > F&I is a technique for reducing jitter on slow, congested links like > the last mile to a customer. It's often combined with a priority > queue, since the latter is not enough on such links (but is on faster > ones). Neither has much to do with the (tiny) sizes of voice packets. somebody told me that they can get about 8 concurrent G.711 calls over an 11Mbit/sec 802.11 link, and maybe 9 if they use G.729. apparently the radio link arbitration on 802.11 is better than ALOHA but not as good as "thickwire", and the packets-per-second maximum is low-in-practice, and we'll only see full rate (11Mbits/sec, 54Mbits/sec, whatever) from single-flow-large-MTU. that's ok for me, it's still good enough for a horsecam and a barnphone. but it's something worth checking into for anyone who plans larger deployment.

3 2

Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by David Barak 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

--- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: <snip> > > Toll-quality voice requires ... > > ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS > empire actually > cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality > voice is fine. > (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the > USA!) anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as originating from the VoPI. > sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not > telephony over ip, it's > voice over ip), The difference between the two is readily apparent to businesses: VoIP::POTS as "ToIP"::PBX/Centrex >we're going to have to integrate it > into our computers. > ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for > less than USD $300!") > because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the > POTS empire can use > the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations > (or local equivilent) > to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making > money from "voice". Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be "damn the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). > > the solution of course is to use computers rather > than "phones" and to > use domain names rather than "phone numbers". fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service. > > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter > and high > > coast-to-coast latency, ... > > just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do > we mean when we talk > about the "public internet"? my first thought was > lisbon-to-sakhalin, > rather than seattle-to-miami. > > given that the public internet isn't even centered > in let alone predominated > by north america any more, How do you measure this? According to Telegeography, London has been the city with the most international connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New York (& environs) still had the highest aggregate international bandwidth during that time. I would certainly say that North America is a disproportionate source and sink of traffic relative to population. > and that some of the best > (and/or loudest) speakers > at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) > are from outside north > america, it seems to me that the "reform party" > should be thinking of a new > name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or > WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected > board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over > "nanog governance"... Well, North America does have its own issues, and there should be a venue for that. (side note: I'm far more likely to have my employer send me to Seattle than to Tokyo...) <snip> > (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing > list, go find out, plz.) > Thanks for the plug :) > > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent > QoS or within the same > > general area of the country, you can afford a > larger transmit buffer without > > risking the "walkie talkie" effect. > > all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, "I encourage my competitors to use this voice quality standard." David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

2 1

BGP routing policies in ISP networks
by Matthew Caesar 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Hi NANOG, Jennifer Rexford and I have written an overview of how BGP routing policies are done in ISP networks. The goal was to write a kind of tutorial that students learning about BGP and people new to the field could use to better understand some of the issues involved in setting up a BGP network, peering with neighbors, etc. We aimed to provide a taxonomy of policies commonly used, the goals motivating them, and a high-level overview of how they are implemented at routers, and we tried to discuss some of the complex issues that can arise which make the job of a network operator so challenging. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mccaesar/papers/policies.pdf We'd really appreciate your comments on the work. We'd also enjoy learning about other types of policies that network operators use, or other issues you've run into when implementing policies in your networks. Thanks, Matt

1 0

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Completely agree with [1] "...deploying faster than..", and [2] "...suggest we work on what it needs to be better...". Additionally, it would be also be wonderful if the nasty business of VoIP service providers playing both sides of the current regulatory issues (or lack thereof, or both) didn't come into play, but I guess you can't win 'em all. - ferg -- Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: so, i am sure it does not meet everyone's needs, seems poor quality to some, ... but it's deploying at least a decimal order of magnitude faster than ipv6. so, rather than pretend it sucks so badly it can be ignored, i suggest we work on what it needs to be better and to scale really well. randy -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Matthew Whalen 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Bill Nash wrote: > I find this to be entertaining, since as a VOIP consumer, I'm reimbursing > my ISP for the cost of the traffic as part of my monthly tithe. Wow - your ISP charges 10% of your income for Internet service? And I thought *my* T1 was expensive. -matthew christopher +God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.+

1 0

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Bill, I understand completely what you are saying, but QoS is not ubiquitous in the end-to-end sense in the Internet. And that is a problem. Once _any_ traffic which you might deem "quality" leaves your administrative control (e.g. the boundaries of your network), you have no guarantee that the "quality" handling of that traffic will be honored (or, in this case, carried at all). I agree with whomever said it earlier -- remember that the global Internet is nothing more than a bunch of interconnected private networks. - ferg -- Bill Nash <billn(a)billn.net> wrote: Obviously VOIP needs QoS to function well on oversold, commodity broadband networks. Why not just paint VOIP with a broad QoS brush (as in, prioritize all of it, not just your own service) and defang the folks just looking for an excuse to step in and take the option away from you? - billn -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

4 3

"Vint Cerf Says Symmetry is Beautiful"
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Interesting comments made by Vint Cerf at Wednesday evenings "Freedom to Connect" dinner on his thoughts concerning where the Internet should go in the future, push/pull symmetry (or, "why legacy providers do not want to offer true, symmetric broadband"), et.al: Cerf Says Symmetry is Beautiful http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2005/cerf_f2c.html - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

4 3

Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Church, Chuck 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

For what it's worth - I monitored my Vonage call today, which lasted 54 minutes: Ethernet0/1 Input Output Protocol Packet Count Packet Count Byte Count Byte Count 5 minute bit rate (bps) 5 minute bit rate (bps) ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ rtp 109086 108959 18971788 18958866 0 0 Or about 20 mbytes/hour, 33 packets per second. That's on Vonage's middle phone quality setting, (50kbit), with the Motorola ATA... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D

1 0

RE: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by ehall＠ehsco.com 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

> Are you saying XO is giving your biz DSL higher QoS than consumer DSL? Dunno what they're doing today, but when I had that package (several years ago) there wasn't much need for QoS and as far as I know they didn't use it. They might have, or they might be today, dunno.

1 0

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Nor would I, and thank you for making the distinction. $.02, - ferg -- Greg Boehnlein <damin(a)nacs.net> wrote: > I agree with whomever said it earlier -- remember that the > global Internet is nothing more than a bunch of interconnected > private networks. VoIP is great. VoPI (Voice over Public Internet) is great when it works, but I wouldn't bet my life or my business on it. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0