Re: Enterprise VoIP Peering Point?

[Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>]

The interesting thing will be to see if the MSOs prioritize all RTP traffic
high, their own RTP traffic high, or no prioritization at all.

An interesting variant on the "walled garden" is your cable company
optimizing their own voice service (via simple prioritization), but letting
everyone else's bits fight it out.

Prioritizing RTP traffic might also be of some interest when the IM vendors
start coming out with their multiway video conferencing stuff. A bit larger
than my G.711 session to Vonage...

- Dan

On 8/11/04 12:56 PM, "Mark R. Lindsey" <lindsey@e-c-group.com> wrote:

> I've heard this a few times in the past few weeks:
> "Sorry, my vonage phone is breaking up. Can you repeat that?"
> 
> Many of the folks that I talk to who are using un-prioritized bandwidth
> into their homes/small businesses frequently have problems. These are
> DSL and Cable users.
> 
> The cheap end-user equipment could easily have ready support for voice
> prioritization. E.g., the D-link DVG-1120 specs say that "Voice service
> is prioritized over the data traffic"
> (http://www.dlink.com/products/resource.asp?pid=169&rid=652)
> 
> DSL and Cable IP providers could do something similarly simplistic that
> would go a long way on the bottleneck links; e.g., prioritize UDP
> higher than TCP.
> 
> "Headroom" on high-capacity links is *probably* primarily because the
> typical bottleneck link sizes between users and their servers is so
> small. Most of my downloads from popular servers max out <400kbps, even
> though I have a lightly-loaded 18Mbps link into my office that's barely
> used. Something out there is traffic-shaping the download, or else my
> flow crosses a congested link. In the latter case, unprotected
> real-time flows across that congested link will have problems.
> 
> ---
> Mark R. Lindsey     Engineers' Consulting Group
> Office: 229-244-2099x2207; Mobile: 229-630-5553
> 
> 
> On Aug 11, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> and we would maintain enough upstream IP headroom that questions of
>> quality wouldn't even arise.
> ...
>>> Interprovider RSVP anyone?
>> 
>> is anybody seeing enough IP congestion for this to matter, anymore?
>> with all
>> the bankrupt fiber and ebay GSR's in the world, i'm seeing that pretty
>> much
>> everybody has enough headroom to do good quality voip, other than on an
>> enduser/enterprise basis where somebody's last mile might be full of
>> spam.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.

-- 


--
To unsubscribe send a message to voip-peering-request@psg.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
An archive is at <http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering/>.