- VoiceOps - lists.voiceops.org

Acme: EMS or CLI?
by scott＠sberkman.net Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

So for all the Acme users out there, is the huge cost for the EMS worth it to you? How many people use CLI vs EMS for their day to day actions? Some things lend more towards CLI (linux, cisco, asterisk) and some things just lend more towards GUI (Metaswitch, Broadsoft, Sonus Insight). -Scott

5 6

Patent case against VoIP gateway vendors
by lindsey＠e-c-group.com Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

An old US Robotics patent from the early 90's is the basis for a new patent lawsuit against most of the big VoIP gateway vendors. MetaSwitch, Sonus, Cisco, and Audiocodes are among the targets. You can get the court filings (for free) and my informal IANAL technical analysis of the case: http://www.200ok.info/2009/09/ianal-analysis-of-patent-5912888-claims.html I am not a lawyer. mark r lindsey at e-c-group.com http://e-c-group.com/~lindsey +12293160013

1 0

Question for NexTone SBC Users
by mcallahan＠bullseyetelecom.com Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

We've been using NexTone's MSX session boarder controller product for the past several years. While our experience with support and maintenance on this product was not great under NexTone, our experience with Genband -- the latest owner of the NexTone product line -- leaves quite a bit more to be desired. Is anyone on the list using someone other than Genband for support on a NexTone SBC? If so, whom and how has your experience been? Thanks, Mike

2 1

Integra Telecom switch operator
by jonathan＠thurmantech.com Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

Could a switch operator from Integra Telecom in Oregon please contact me off-list? -Jonathan

1 0

G729 across ATM
by Kris.Alberts＠is.co.za Sept. 7, 2009

Sept. 7, 2009

Hi I'm trying to ensure optimal bandwidth usage for our VoIP solution. The last mile link to the customer is ATM. I have done some calculations, and unless I'm missing something here it seems 1 voice packet will always be split across two ATM cells. I'm not finding a good doc that can break this down into detail. Voice usage per packet: Codec: G729a, using 20ms sample size, 20 byte payload = 20 bytes. Layer3: IP/RTP/UDP header = 40 bytes Bandwidth required = at least 60 byte packet. ATM Cell: 53 bytes - 5 overhead - 8 AAL trailer Bandwidth available = at most 40 bytes. My first question is: How does the Cisco voice bandwidth calculator fit G729 on 10ms or 20ms or 30ms payload into 1 Cell? Do they assume cRTP is enabled? Then, I'm not finding a good doc on how to effectively calculate bandwidth usage for cRTP across ATM. Configuring it via a virtual-template interface seems straight forward though. Lastly, if I manage to get a G729 packet squeezed into 1 cell, apart from the obvious save in bandwidth consumption, should there be any other improvement in the solution as a whole? Regards, kris "Morality is moral only when it is voluntary." Lincoln Steffens Please note: This email and its content are subject to the disclaimer as displayed at the following link http://www.is.co.za/legal/E-mail+Confidentiality+Notice+and+Disclaimer.htm. Should you not have Web access, send a mail to disclaimers at is.co.za and a copy will be emailed to you.

1 0

Acme SBC geographic redundancy
by jnesheim＠cytek.biz Sept. 6, 2009

Sept. 6, 2009

Right, that would impact existing established calls and subscriptions. However, larger problem is that in a failover condition endpoints would begin sending SIP Invites to a SBC (pair) that does not have a valid registration cached, and depending on the configuration, SIP port map. Depending on the re-registration interval, this could result in outbound call failures for anywhere for a couple minutes to an hour or more. In the reverse direction the inside SBC IP would be unique at each site. This would render the metaswitch unable to contact the endpoint for PSTN -> VoIP calls for the period of re-registration as well. -- Jason Nesheim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Balashov" <abalashov at evaristesys.com> To: "Jason L. Nesheim" <jnesheim at cytek.biz> Cc: "Brad Anouar" <Brad at broadcore.com>, voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:39:46 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy Jason L. Nesheim wrote: > If you're going to use SRV records in an Access deployment with > registration caching on the Acme SBC one thing to keep in mind is that > non-HA SBCs (or two separate pairs) will not share their registration > and NAT databases. I would imagine they don't share transaction and dialog state either. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 Mobile : (+1) (678) 237-1775

3 2

SIP traffic modeling
by jnesheim＠cytek.biz Sept. 6, 2009

Sept. 6, 2009

Ixia (IxLoad, IxVoice at limited volumes), Spirent (Abacus), and Hammer (G5, not the Edge) all make test platforms that can be scripted to perform various SIP and RTP operations and analyze the results at high volumes. Based on what you're describing it sounds like you might want to give one of these platforms an eval, just be prepared for some sticker shock. -- Jason Nesheim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Bell" <Joe_Bell at adp.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 9:52:23 AM Subject: [VoiceOps] SIP traffic modeling Hey Guys, I was wondering what everyone uses for modeling SIP traffic, associated media sessions, and various call movement operations like Hold, Park, transfer, etc.. I know of Hammer, and that?s cool for throughput, but I was trying to find a tool that can send and measure large amounts of SIP signaling along with the associated media. We are looking at SIPp and lots of scripts, but I wanted to hear from the forum what other tools have been investigated. Thanks, Joe Bell CCIE 6722, R&S, Voice This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

1 0

Acme SBC geographic redundancy
by jnesheim＠cytek.biz Sept. 6, 2009

Sept. 6, 2009

If you're going to use SRV records in an Access deployment with registration caching on the Acme SBC one thing to keep in mind is that non-HA SBCs (or two separate pairs) will not share their registration and NAT databases. -- Jason Nesheim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Anouar" <Brad at broadcore.com> To: voiceops at voiceops.org Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 4:25:10 PM Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy I agree with Alex, SRV records could be a more realistic solution for the access side given that you are willing to accept some post dial delay in failover mode. If you plan on using ACME for peering, since most providers don't support SRV records, you will have to provide them with multiple IPs and the order in which you would like them to be used. Brad Anouar Director - Systems Engineering P: 310-360-2028 F: 310-360-2029 brad at broadcore.com -----Original Message----- From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:03 PM To: Brandon Buckner Cc: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy As with any HA setup of IP nodes, the main problems boil down to: 1. Adequate network bandwidth and network availability between the primary and standby unit (or silo) for reliable and sufficiently low-latency synchronisation of various information (config changes, standby status, any call state information shared among them in Acme's HA setup, etc.); 2. The more common way to make them effectively redundant from a user perspective is to have them share an IP address, in which case it is necessary to ensure that the traffic destined for that IP network can pass into the other POP in the event of a failure, which requires complicated integration with your BGP and/or IP connectivity arrangements and any interior routing protocols you may be running. A more realistic approach is to have all the clients use an SRV record - if all your clients are capable of SRV lookups - and specify the secondary with lower priority, avoiding the complexities of IP sharing across disparate geographic sites altogether. -- Alex Brandon Buckner wrote: > Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've > got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch > system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external > call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm > still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see > what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark > questions I can bring up with Acme as well. -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

2 1

Acme SBC geographic redundancy
by carlos＠race.com Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

Brandon, Have you talked to your Metaswitch se they are now fully supporting the acme with the Metaswitch so you don't have to be dealing with 2 different groups pointing the finger at each other saying it's there fault. We purchased the acme directly thru meta so we didn't have to deal with so many parties. Carlos Alcantar Race Telecommunications, Inc. 101 Haskins Way South San Francisco, CA 94080 P: 650.649.3550 F: 650.649.3551 From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Buckner Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 3:57 PM To: voiceops at voiceops.org Subject: [VoiceOps] Acme SBC geographic redundancy Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well. Thanks, ---- Brandon Buckner Switching Technician / VoIP Admin Iowa Network Services brandonb at netins.com

2 1

Acme SBC geographic redundancy
by BrandonB＠netins.com Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

Is anyone doing geographic redundancy with their Acme Packet SBCs? We've got an HA pair of nn4250s right now and are installing a new Metaswitch system that is geographically redundant at two locations with external call agents, TDM links, etc. We'd like to get SIP to be the same. I'm still waiting on a response from our Acme SE about it but wanted to see what others had done, if anything. I figure some discussion will spark questions I can bring up with Acme as well. Thanks, ---- Brandon Buckner Switching Technician / VoIP Admin Iowa Network Services brandonb at netins.com<mailto:brandonb at netins.com>

4 3