[TriLUG] Site to Site VPN over the net? Good enough for VoIP?

[Jim Ray]

if you're hopping over from network to network, it really doesn't matter 
what any one site has.  the combination of all gate delays creates the 
latency.  if any network in the chain has a bottleneck, you'll still 
experience latency.  when you have control over the network and can 
implement p and q tagging, you can minimize the effects of latency on a 
local basis.  anything over the Internet will be more susceptible to 
latency.

Jon Carnes wrote:

>On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 15:06, Jim Ray wrote:
>  
>
>>it doesn't matter so much that it is hosted or on the premises of the 
>>corporate headquarters.  it's the pipe between the two and the latentcy 
>>that count.
>>
>>jonc wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>If you are connecting multiple sites then your best bet is to use a
>>>hosted provider.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>That would be true if the casual business could afford to buy the types
>of Softswitches and Border Controllers (Voice Proxy Firewalls) that a
>Hosted Provider has in place. 
>
>If he hosted the softswitch and all his sites connected via Speakeasy
>then they would sound better - since the traffic would most likely never
>leave Speakeasy for the cloud - but they would not have QoS applied for
>their traffic (unless they were going directly to Speakeasy's
>softswitches), so while the voice would probably sound good it wouldn't
>sound as clear as going with a hosted solution.
>
>The best solution (if he hosts the Softswitch directly) is to have a
>dedicated line from one ISP that feeds the VoIP traffic to the
>softswitch, and then use a separate ISP for internet access. 
>
>We run some Soho clients this way. They have DSL for their data needs
>and use TW for their VoIP connections. We do it this way because VoIP
>never uses enough bandwidth to cause any restrictions (Bandwidth
>queueing that is) on the head cable router - so the latencies stay
>within a nice range. 
>
>The latencies on a DSL connection from Bell are very unpredictable -
>even when there is no load. Verzion's DSL is generally better. Sprint's
>seems to cycle from okay to horrible, leading me to believe that they
>have absolutely no management on their network access points. 
>
>Speakeasy does a really good job - much better than TimeWarner.
>Unfortunately they aren't available everywhere - and some places where
>they have a presence they aren't accepting any new customers - so they
>don't overload their networks (what a concept!).
>
>Speaking from the front lines of VoIP,
>
>Jon Carnes
>FeatureTel
>
>
>  
>