30 Oct
2008
30 Oct
'08
3:25 p.m.
Quoting Kristian Kielhofner <kkielhofner(a)star2star.com>om>:
In which case, all my customers are under 120ms (all broadband or
higher and not all are local), pretty much all under 12 hops to me and
to the PSTN. Works fine for me and I pay a fair bit of money to have
my solid internet connections ;-)
Thanks,
-graham
Have you ever actually received a subpoena? Are you a
CLEC? What
is your interconnection to the PSTN?
I have not directly received one, but know of folks that have. No, I
am not a CLEC (nor plan to ever be one). My connection to the PSTN is
SIP directly to the provider's SONUS switch.
Isn't your bandwidth symmetric/full duplex? How
is 170kbps valid?
Client -->[~85kbps] -->device proxying audio -->[~85kbps] -->PSTN
If both of those legs come in and out on your same Internet provider
leg, well, that call is going to cost you 170kbps. Since I do run BGP
across multiple providers, I do have a fair bit of asymmetric routing,
where the client may come in on my Tier2 and then sholve the call back
out on my Tier1. Still adds up to 170kbps no matter how you slice it.
But again, since I don't run full-time audio proxing, I don't have
to worry about the bandwidth being absorbed like this anymore.
Why tack on another N amout of router hops and ms to the call if you
don't need to?
Plus, I am
finding that the call quality is a bit better when the audio goes
directly from the NAT client straight to the PSTN provider. While we do
operate our own network (AS / BGP, with two Tier1 and Tier2 providers), if I
don't have to proxy the audio, the better.
Totally makes sense in most cases:
- Depending on your connectivity
- Depending on your SIP/PSTN provider
- Depending on the customer's connectivity