High Volume VoIP Implementation
Bill
center somewhere on a Pacific Island. This island is serviced by Asia
Global Crossing so at least they have "reliable" bandwidth to the USA.
We own a Nortel 81C in the USA. We would like to be able to connect
up to 50 VoIP agents to our US based switch so they can call cleints
and ask them simple questions revolving around a customer satisfaction
survey.
We have two ITG cards in the 81C but the Nortel docs say we need to
have 150ms latency at the worst for the ITG phones (IP2004) to work
with any reliability. My 81C has more than 30 PRI's to my LD carrier
and currently acts as the PBX for a couple of call centers we have
connected in Asia (TDM though).
We're currently looking at latency in the realm of 180ms - 220ms.
This is of course the result of a simple ping. Nortel also says we'll
need about 92K of bandwidth per connected agent to carry a G.711
conversation, and they are advising us that G.729 compression would
probably not work in this scenario. 5 Mbits of bandwidth from the
Pacific Island to my 81C is not cheap.
Does anyone know of a third party solution I might be able to use from
the Pacific Island to my PBX? The remote extensions must appear to be
local extensions on my PBX. I really want to use some sort of
reliable compression codec so we can minimize the amount of expensive
bandwidth we'll need. I know...I know...you get what you pay for and
even less sometimes.
We're very disappointed in the ITG products from Nortel and we're not
getting much help from our local vendor in solving this issue.
The more I read, the more I am convinced that VoIP is never going to
be as good quality as TDM....or so it appears. I certainly don't see
how it is cheaper to implement in a group of this size.
Neil Downandeader
tolerance and limitations of us human beings-- that's why the 150ms
threshold is set by the ITU's G114 standard. If you are looking for a VOIP
solution, you're going to have difficulty with any vendor's solution with
that kind of one-way delay. Whoever is advising you not to use G729 is doing
you a huge favor, as it will not perform well under the circumstances that
you are describing.
The propogation delay that you should be seeing (assuming 10,000 miles
distance) should be in the neighborhood of 85ms each direction. If you cut
your ping measurements in half, it appears that you're in the neighborhood,
although the ping method measures end-to-end (includes all layer 2 and layer
3 networking devices in between, which need o be factored in). If you were
to use 10ms packetization and a small jitter buffer (40ms or less), and you
add 7ms for a T1's serialization delay, you add up to 145 - 150 milliseconds
of one-way delay.
If your service provider can guarantee consistent delivery within these
parameters, and if you configure a workable QOS strategy for the RTP
streams, you should be able to deploy VOIP and expect acceptable voice
quality, as long as you use G711 -- if you add the 30ms of extra latency
that will be introduced by theG729 compression algorithm, you will be
dissatisfied with the voice quality compared to G711.
Jeff
"Bill" <hike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:662db5ea.03052...@posting.google.com...
shido
You can definitely use asterisk (http://www.asterisk.org) to do what you
need.
Asterisk is an Open Source hybrid TDM/packet voice PBX and IVR platform with
ACD funtionality.
I can slim your per call bandwidth down to 13k/sec.
Yes your remote agents, softphones, ip phones or pots lines can look like
local extensions to your PBX.
We havent even begin to discuss the conferencing, voicemail, and trunking
capabilities.
-Greg
"Bill" <hike...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:662db5ea.03052...@posting.google.com...
shope
news:%tfBa.37070$_t5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
if the bandwidth cost is an issue, and you may need to go G.711 - what do
you get for using Voip over TDM apart from extra delay and equipment?
Maybe you just need a T1 or 2 and a remote PBX?
--
Regards
Stephen Hope - remove xx from email to reply
Rich Campbell
.
"shido" <sh...@indie.org> wrote in message
news:kCnBa.298923$w7k.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Jeremy McNamara
Rich, believe what you want, but I know for an absolute fact Asterisk is
capable of doing anything even remotely related to telecommunications.
Some genius out there has made a channel driver for Asterisk that is a
ham radio repeater controller. Try doing that with a Cisco or Avaya
solution.
I have personally been involved in the deployment of three call centers,
over a dozen 4 to 16 line businesses and working on turning up two
completely separate CLECs with Asterisk based solutions, along with our
over 50 IAX Termination customers.
Granted Asterisk doesn't have all the bells and whistles that those
proprietary solutions have, but that doesn't mean someone couldn't add
whatever features they want/need in a weekend or two. Plus, most of
those so-called features just add bloat and over-complication.
One of the major benefits of Asterisk is the fact that it is
open-source. Being open-source the service provider 100% control of
their operation. They don't have to deal with TAC to get a bug fixed or
argue with some technical support moron to get a 'issue' that they are
having fixed. If Asterisk does something that ~you~ personally do not
like ~you~ have absolutely everything to change that behavior. Can you
do that with Cisco? Avaya? Clarent? Quintum? I think not.
There is a major community behind Asterisk, along with more than a few
commercial ventures directly supporting and deploying Asterisk, not to
mention the primary sponsor, Digium.
In fact, I believe Asterisk is better supported than ANY other telcom
solution that is out there, but then again I am most certainly biased.
I'll end this rant with a comment from a happy customer in the #Asterisk
IRC channel (irc.freenode.net) this evening:
[17:38] <HoopyCat> off to drink a margarita, for kram has saved,
hickory-smoked, vacuum-sealed, *and* festively wrapped my bacon and
handed it back to me with one CVS commit.
[17:38] <HoopyCat> (that's a good thing)
(kram == Mark Spencer god of everything Asterisk.)
Jeremy McNamara
Jon Smyth
capable of doing anything even remotely related to telecommunications.
Some genius out there has made a channel driver for Asterisk that is a
ham radio repeater controller. I don't think ANY other PBX/VoIP solution
out there has that kind of flexibility.
Jeremy McNamara
Jeremy McNamara
Jeremy McNamara
Chris Romero
Show me an Asterisk system that can:
1) Have a communication bus that can survive the removal of the CPU, and
still have calls in progress that remain active until the calling parties
hang up.
2) I have yet to hear of any Asterisk box running a fully redundant CPU
configuration. I bet this is possible. Especially with the newer hot swap
cPCI bus systems and slave CPU cards. Even better if the chassis has and
embedded H.110, or equivalent in LAN/memory, switching bus.
3) A redundant configuration where either CPU can talk to the communications
boards (T1/E1), and LAN interfaces. And which can address all boards in the
system redundantly.
4) A redundant configuration that has either shared system memory between
the CPU's, or at least table copies between memory that hold all static and
dynamic call information.
5) A redundant configuration that can swap between system CPU's in less than
20 seconds.
6) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
and more network clocking signals. Plus synchronize on a independent
stratum 3 or greater clock source.
7) And can support 1,000 or more endpoints (TDM and/or IP) without choking
on it's own guts.
8) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
and more network clocking signals.
Heck, if someone could even educate me that an Asterisk server can do even
the first four I would really like to hear that person tell me off. I'll
buy you a beer to do it as well.
I am not against the Asterisk idea. It's a fine idea. And with boards from
eBay, it can even be relatively low cost.
But Paaaaallleeese! do try to pass the server as either free, or entirely
robust. And for the project the gentleman has in mind, he will have to pay
for compression licenses. Granted that they are fairly low cost, but not
free.
Don't forget the training aspect as well. I hope the person has time to
learn a new system. The quirks involved with it. Plus the problems in
integrating it with their current system(s). There a lot to be said for
thoroughly knowing the call routing logic of a single system well. Rather
than knowing two different platforms, half well.
Especially when it your personal time and reputation at stake; at two in the
morning trying to do call tracing between two disparate systems. Even worse
when those two systems are actually two different platforms as well. God
help that poor soul in the call center. Should he live through the
experience I would by the individual a mercy shot of whiskey. Though I
doubt he would be awake to enjoy it. Or even if awake, have a steady hadn
to raise the glass to his/her lips before it sloshes out.
Open-source is great as well. Just don't forget that to change an
open-source iten, you have it know it well. And you have to know how to
code well. Otherwise you will be stuck trading T.A.C./Support costs for the
price of hiring a sysadmin, and/or a software coder, and/or a hardware
person (to either build h/w, or code drivers), plus a field tech trained to
work with the system inad install it (so you can have a vacation).
Now with all this said I know I am going to build and Asterisk server myself
to play with. I even have a line on some free JCT boards to set it up with.
It's a great platform to learn many aspects of computers and communications.
I suggest anyone out who is wondering about the system do the same.
Evaulate the platform for your needs, and it's suitability to the purpose.
For I am certain it's suitable to many purposes. Maybe some of them are
even yours.
Chris
"Jeremy McNamara" <j...@nufone.net> wrote in message
news:DSTCa.111270$t91.1...@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
Chris Romero
Chris
Jon Smyth
> Not blow anyone's ASTERISK bubble BUT,,,,,,,
>
> Show me an Asterisk system that can:
>
> 1) Have a communication bus that can survive the removal of the CPU, and
> still have calls in progress that remain active until the calling parties
> hang up.
Asterisk can't do that, but neither can Cisco. If you loose a 5300 every
call on it is gonna drop like a prom dress.
Anyways, If you run good hardware how often are you gonna loose a CPU?
We've got Asterisk boxes that have been running for over a year without
so much as a hiccup.
> 2) I have yet to hear of any Asterisk box running a fully redundant CPU
> configuration. I bet this is possible. Especially with the newer hot swap
> cPCI bus systems and slave CPU cards. Even better if the chassis has and
> embedded H.110, or equivalent in LAN/memory, switching bus.
TDMoE, properly designed Asterisk dialplan and redundant provisioning at
the switch.
No need for cPCI or H.110 junk.
> 3) A redundant configuration where either CPU can talk to the communications
> boards (T1/E1), and LAN interfaces. And which can address all boards in the
> system redundantly.
>
No need. See answer to question 2.
> 4) A redundant configuration that has either shared system memory between
> the CPU's, or at least table copies between memory that hold all static and
> dynamic call information.
Use a centralized Asterisk config or write a perl script to sync configs
when changes are made.
> 5) A redundant configuration that can swap between system CPU's in less than
> 20 seconds.
0 seconds...See answer to question 3
> 6) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
> and more network clocking signals. Plus synchronize on a independent
> stratum 3 or greater clock source.
?!
> 7) And can support 1,000 or more endpoints (TDM and/or IP) without choking
> on it's own guts.
Cake
> 8) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
> and more network clocking signals.
?!
> Heck, if someone could even educate me that an Asterisk server can do even
> the first four I would really like to hear that person tell me off. I'll
> buy you a beer to do it as well.
I only drink Vodka.
>
> I am not against the Asterisk idea. It's a fine idea. And with boards from
> eBay, it can even be relatively low cost.
>
> But Paaaaallleeese! do try to pass the server as either free, or entirely
> robust. And for the project the gentleman has in mind, he will have to pay
> for compression licenses. Granted that they are fairly low cost, but not
> free.
Nobody has said Asterisk was without cost. This is the most common
misconception about open-source software. Asterisk is free as in "free
speech" not free as in "free beer". In fact there are many costs
associated with the deployment of an Asterisk based solutions, but those
costs are DRASTICLY cheaper than any proprietary solution.
Plus, you have the source code!! I don't see Lucent or Cisco giving
anonymous CVS access to everyone.
Compression licenses?! GSM, Speex, and iLBC come included with Asterisk
without cost. G.723.1 can be obtained quite easily and yes G.729 can be
licensed from Digium very cheaply. Anyways, your paying for these same
licenses when using proprietary solutions, so it's a wash.
> Don't forget the training aspect as well. I hope the person has time to
> learn a new system. The quirks involved with it. Plus the problems in
> integrating it with their current system(s). There a lot to be said for
> thoroughly knowing the call routing logic of a single system well. Rather
> than knowing two different platforms, half well.
They can hire one of a handful of companies that will either train them
on Asterisk or simply implement everything for them and build pretty GUI
based config tools that are customized specificly to their needs.
> Open-source is great as well. Just don't forget that to change an
> open-source iten, you have it know it well. And you have to know how to
> code well. Otherwise you will be stuck trading T.A.C./Support costs for the
> price of hiring a sysadmin, and/or a software coder, and/or a hardware
> person (to either build h/w, or code drivers), plus a field tech trained to
> work with the system inad install it (so you can have a vacation).
Those costs are still going to be dramaticly lower than any proprietary
solution. You cannot forget all the CRAZY licensing BS those
proprietary solutions make you be in compliance with. In my mind, those
kinds of licensing terms means, "bend over, this is gonna hurt."
Plus, with Asterisk you won't have a TAC engineer saying, "Well, we
can't change that just for you." or "That's not a bug that's a feature."
because with Asterisk there is no definition of "can't" or "won't" as
you get 100% of the code.
> Now with all this said I know I am going to build and Asterisk server myself
> to play with. I even have a line on some free JCT boards to set it up with.
Dialogic is old school... pick up some Digium hardware.
http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=hardware_products
> It's a great platform to learn many aspects of computers and communications.
> I suggest anyone out who is wondering about the system do the same.
> Evaulate the platform for your needs, and it's suitability to the purpose.
> For I am certain it's suitable to many purposes. Maybe some of them are
> even yours.
I haven't found anything that Asterisk cannot do or cannot be made to do.
Jeremy McNamara
Jeremy McNamara
> Not blow anyone's ASTERISK bubble BUT,,,,,,,
>
> Show me an Asterisk system that can:
>
> 1) Have a communication bus that can survive the removal of the CPU, and
> still have calls in progress that remain active until the calling parties
> hang up.
Asterisk can't do that, but neither can Cisco. If you loose a 5300 every
call on it is gonna drop like a prom dress.
Anyways, If you run good hardware how often are you gonna loose a CPU?
We've got Asterisk boxes that have been running for over a year without
so much as a hiccup.
> 2) I have yet to hear of any Asterisk box running a fully redundant CPU
> configuration. I bet this is possible. Especially with the newer hot swap
> cPCI bus systems and slave CPU cards. Even better if the chassis has and
> embedded H.110, or equivalent in LAN/memory, switching bus.
TDMoE, properly designed Asterisk dialplan and redundant provisioning at
the switch.
No need for cPCI or H.110 junk.
> 3) A redundant configuration where either CPU can talk to the communications
> boards (T1/E1), and LAN interfaces. And which can address all boards in the
> system redundantly.
No need. See answer to question 2.
> 4) A redundant configuration that has either shared system memory between
> the CPU's, or at least table copies between memory that hold all static and
> dynamic call information.
Use a centralized Asterisk config or write a perl script to sync configs
when changes are made.
> 5) A redundant configuration that can swap between system CPU's in less than
> 20 seconds.
0 seconds...See answer to question 3
> 6) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
> and more network clocking signals. Plus synchronize on a independent
> stratum 3 or greater clock source.
?!
> 7) And can support 1,000 or more endpoints (TDM and/or IP) without choking
> on it's own guts.
Cake
> 8) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
> and more network clocking signals.
!?
> Heck, if someone could even educate me that an Asterisk server can do even
> the first four I would really like to hear that person tell me off. I'll
> buy you a beer to do it as well.
I only drink Vodka.
>
> I am not against the Asterisk idea. It's a fine idea. And with boards from
> eBay, it can even be relatively low cost.
>
> But Paaaaallleeese! do try to pass the server as either free, or entirely
> robust. And for the project the gentleman has in mind, he will have to pay
> for compression licenses. Granted that they are fairly low cost, but not
> free.
Nobody has said Asterisk was without cost. This is the most common
misconception about open-source software. Asterisk is free as in "free
speech" not free as in "free beer". In fact there are many costs
associated with the deployment of an Asterisk based solutions, but those
costs are DRASTICLY cheaper than any proprietary solution.
Plus, you have the source code!! I don't see Lucent or Cisco giving
anonymous CVS access to everyone.
Compression licenses?! GSM, Speex, and iLBC come included with Asterisk
without cost. G.723.1 can be obtained quite easily and yes G.729 can be
licensed from Digium very cheaply. Anyways, your paying for these same
licenses when using proprietary solutions, so it's a wash.
> Don't forget the training aspect as well. I hope the person has time to
> learn a new system. The quirks involved with it. Plus the problems in
> integrating it with their current system(s). There a lot to be said for
> thoroughly knowing the call routing logic of a single system well. Rather
> than knowing two different platforms, half well.
They can hire one of a handful of companies that will either train them
on Asterisk or simply implement everything for them and build pretty GUI
based config tools that are customized specificly to their needs.
> <snip>
> Open-source is great as well. Just don't forget that to change an
> open-source iten, you have it know it well. And you have to know how to
> code well. Otherwise you will be stuck trading T.A.C./Support costs for the
> price of hiring a sysadmin, and/or a software coder, and/or a hardware
> person (to either build h/w, or code drivers), plus a field tech trained to
> work with the system inad install it (so you can have a vacation).
>
Those costs are still going to be dramaticly lower than any proprietary
solution. You cannot forget all the CRAZY licensing BS those
proprietary solutions make you be in compliance with. In my mind, those
kinds of licensing terms means, "bend over, this is gonna hurt."
Plus, with Asterisk you won't have a TAC engineer saying, "Well, we
can't change that just for you." or "That's not a bug that's a feature."
because with Asterisk there is no definition of "can't" or "won't" as
you get 100% of the code.
> Now with all this said I know I am going to build and Asterisk server myself
> to play with. I even have a line on some free JCT boards to set it up with.
Dialogic is old school... pick up some Digium hardware.
http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=hardware_products
> It's a great platform to learn many aspects of computers and communications.
> I suggest anyone out who is wondering about the system do the same.
> Evaulate the platform for your needs, and it's suitability to the purpose.
> For I am certain it's suitable to many purposes. Maybe some of them are
> even yours.
>
I haven't found anything that Asterisk cannot do or cannot be made to do.
Jeremy McNamara
> "Jeremy McNamara" <j...@nufone.net> wrote in message
Melinda Shore
Jeremy McNamara <j...@nufone.net> wrote:
>Asterisk can't do that, but neither can Cisco. If you loose a 5300 every
>call on it is gonna drop like a prom dress.
Just out of curiosity, why do you post duplicate articles
under two different names? This is the second time you've
done it.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
If you don't understand how things are connected, the cause of
problems is solutions -- Amory Lovins
Melinda Shore
Chris Romero <nospamto-cr...@romero.org> wrote:
[ ... ]
Make that identical articles under three different names.
What's up with that?
John
Hi Bill
VoIP is out there and in use, most Telco's are using VoIP as a
backbone transport and Global Crossing is one of them, I am have
worked with PBX's as a customer and have been on the end of Nortel
telling me that VoIP can only work like this with this much bandwidth
and this codec which just means you might as well stay with TDM which
is what they want you to do.
In the real world G729 is a great codec (g723 is ok as well) and in
the blind testing I have done with real people they do not notice the
difference, also have a look at http://www.erlang.com/calculator/
which will give you a good on bandwidth and the call volume. Regarding
call centres the recent explosion of call centres located in India
looking after Europe are a real world examples of VoIP working and the
latency between the UK and India is about 270ms, I know
http://www.aspect.com/ is one of the popular dedicated manufactures
which I know works.
I have used www.cisco.com and www.vegastream.com gateways to extend
PABX extensions with VoIP but this is for analogue extensions, I can
recommend the VegaStream as it is easy to set-up and their support is
good, but there are a bunch of other gateway box's out there which
will do the same.
Regards John
Rich Campbell
"Melinda Shore" <sh...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bbhv8m$g9n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Kyler Laird
>One of the major benefits of Asterisk is the fact that it is
>open-source. Being open-source the service provider 100% control of
>their operation.
I like having control. I'm ordering some Wildcards.
I don't care about all of the "Well does it work like *this* under
the hood?!" arguments. (Why would I care if it can handle a CPU hot
swap if a CPU hot swap is never necessary?) I want something that
provides good service without a single point of support failure.
--kyler
Chris Romero
Show me an Asterisk system that can:
1) Have a communication bus that can survive the removal of the CPU, and
still have calls in progress that remain active until the calling parties
hang up.
2) I have yet to hear of any Asterisk box running a fully redundant CPU
configuration. I bet this is possible. Especially with the newer hot swap
cPCI bus systems and slave CPU cards. Even better if the chassis has and
embedded H.110, or equivalent in LAN/memory, switching bus.
3) A redundant configuration where either CPU can talk to the communications
boards (T1/E1), and LAN interfaces. And which can address all boards in the
system redundantly.
4) A redundant configuration that has either shared system memory between
the CPU's, or at least table copies between memory that hold all static and
dynamic call information.
5) A redundant configuration that can swap between system CPU's in less than
20 seconds.
6) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
and more network clocking signals. Plus synchronize on a independent
stratum 3 or greater clock source.
7) And can support 1,000 or more endpoints (TDM and/or IP) without choking
on it's own guts.
8) A redundant configuration that can synchronize on, and share one, two ,
and more network clocking signals.
Heck, if someone could even educate me that an Asterisk server can do even
the first four I would really like to hear that person tell me off. I'll
buy you a beer to do it as well.
I am not against the Asterisk idea. It's a fine idea. And with boards from
eBay, it can even be relatively low cost.
But Paaaaallleeese! do try to pass the server as either free, or entirely
robust. And for the project the gentleman has in mind, he will have to pay
for compression licenses. Granted that they are fairly low cost, but not
free.
Don't forget the training aspect as well. I hope the person has time to
learn a new system. The quirks involved with it. Plus the problems in
integrating it with their current system(s). There a lot to be said for
thoroughly knowing the call routing logic of a single system well. Rather
than knowing two different platforms, half well.
Especially when it your personal time and reputation at stake; at two in the
morning trying to do call tracing between two disparate systems. Even worse
when those two systems are actually two different platforms as well. God
help that poor soul in the call center. Should he live through the
experience I would by the individual a mercy shot of whiskey. Though I
doubt he would be awake to enjoy it. Or even if awake, have a steady hadn
to raise the glass to his/her lips before it sloshes out.
Open-source is great as well. Just don't forget that to change an
open-source iten, you have it know it well. And you have to know how to
code well. Otherwise you will be stuck trading T.A.C./Support costs for the
price of hiring a sysadmin, and/or a software coder, and/or a hardware
person (to either build h/w, or code drivers), plus a field tech trained to
work with the system inad install it (so you can have a vacation).
Now with all this said I know I am going to build and Asterisk server myself
to play with. I even have a line on some free JCT boards to set it up with.
It's a great platform to learn many aspects of computers and communications.
I suggest anyone out who is wondering about the system do the same.
Evaulate the platform for your needs, and it's suitability to the purpose.
For I am certain it's suitable to many purposes. Maybe some of them are
even yours.
Chris
"Jeremy McNamara" <j...@nufone.net> wrote in message
news:DSTCa.111270$t91.1...@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
Chris Romero
Chris
"Rich Campbell" <rcam...@pantelonline.com> wrote in message
news:vT0Da.819986$OV.776306@rwcrnsc54...
Jeremy McNamara
the problem.
Jeremy
Chris Romero
do. And I have some vodka to buy. Or at least half a shot of vodka
to buy.
On the subject of comparison to Cisco, I really was going in the
direction of a comparison to a Nortel Option 81 Or an Intecom (EADS)
PointSpan PBX.
FOr Question 6, and 8, I was wanting to know how Asterisk handles the
passthrough of network (T1) clock synchronization from one T1
interface to another. This would allow an Asterisk systems to feed
clock to downstream systems. Avoiding frame slips across the voice
network, where Asterisk is the front end to it all (connected to it
PSTN), and connecting to other systems via T1. I am aiming to find
that kind a mixed network answer.
Dialogic JCT's were mentioned due to its cost nature for me right now.
Free.
Chris
Jon Smyth <j...@not.valid.net> wrote in message news:<msYCa.16741$d9....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com>...