- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
by Howard, W. Lee 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Jared Mauch > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:06 PM > To: Paul Vixie > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around > 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and > leave space for my UDP packet streams. > > I think one of the major problems is that very few > people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 > frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because > they can't set these more granular settings on their > systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I > think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not > designed for high pps rates.. That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet size curve and the latency curve? I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and intervleaving? I'm outside of that "very few people," but I could imagine wanting dynamic control--one packet size (latency) for a certain calling plan (calls within the LAN, maybe even to anywhere on my network if I control end-to-end QoS, and local calls) but another for long distance. > - jared Lee

2 1

RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
by Howard, W. Lee 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Robert Bonomi > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 7:05 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors > > > Dunno where you got the 'more than 2 subscribers' bit as > defining over- subscribed. Unless you > mis-read/mis-interpreted my remark about "50% > utilization" for VoIP data. Active VoIP transmission is > about 80kbps. Depends on the codec. Yes, most people default to G.711, but my experience with G.729 and header compression has been good, and closer to 12Kbps. I definitely agree that it's much more symmetrical than web traffic, and could therefore mess with someone's capacity planning. Denying traffic that doesn't conform to your engineering is one response. Re-engineering is another. Do what you will with your network, I know what I'd do with mine. Lee

6 6

RE: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Landers, David 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Are you saying XO is giving your biz DSL higher QoS than consumer DSL? I can see them providing the premium services (unblocked ports, etc., higher CIR between POP/gateway and CPE), but be surprised if they're giving your traffic priority on their backbone. At least that's not typical (Genuity, VZ, BA, SBC, L3 history). _____________ David Landers IP Operations Engineering Level 3 Communications _____________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Eric A. Hall Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:32 AM To: Greg Boehnlein Cc: Brad Knowles; Bill Nash; Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance On 3/31/2005 9:25 AM, Greg Boehnlein wrote: > On a different tact, where I -THINK- the market will eventually end up is > w/ different classes of BroadBand service, whereby QOS and priority will > be given to those that wish to pay for it. The $14.95 services will be a > best-effort, and the $59.95 services will have priority. We've there already. When I had my home-office DSL package from XO it was much more expensive than consumer DSL from pacbell, for example, but gave me the ability to run local servers, non-blocking network ranges, etc. Meanwhille, cable contracts are pretty much written such that the service is only supposed to be used for ~web browsing and other basic tasks, and if you want reliability or better bandwidth then call the business service number. I don't see this much in the local provider market though. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

1 0