[asterisk-users] Teliax Quality of Service

[Anthony Francis]

Douglas Garstang wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-
>> bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of SIP
>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 8:56 AM
>> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Teliax Quality of Service
>>
>> Steve Totaro wrote:
>>     
>>> Anthony Francis wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Tim Panton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On 5 Aug 2007, at 06:54, Douglas Garstang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I don't think creating a network without a single point of
>>>>>>             
> failure
>   
>>>>>> is unreasonable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> It's impossible. I can't think of a single example where this
>>>>> actually exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting even close is hideously expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim, speaking for himself :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
>>>>>           
> http://www.api-digital.com--
>   
>>>>> asterisk-users mailing list
>>>>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>>>>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> In fact, the only people who would say something like this are
>>>>         
> folks
>   
>> who
>>     
>>>> have never PHYSICALLY implemented a network, they simply don't
>>>> understand the limitations involved.
>>>>         
>
> I worked for a CLEC in Montana, not Silicon Valley, not Manhatten, but
> rather PODUNK, Montana. We had redundant multi-homed servers, connected
> to multiple switches, running OSPF. A failure in any component (server,
> network, cable) would cause a failover to a backup component in about 6
> seconds. We had multiple upstream providers. The servers where divided
> between multiple racks, split between different power plants. We did
> just about everything we could to make the setup redundant.
>
> The CPE equipment at any single location might fail, and that wasn't
> redundant, but at least if that failed, it would not affect any other
> customers. CPE equipment included POE enabled phones, a UPS, a POE
> switch and power being delivered from our plant.
>
> Yes, all the equipment was located at the same physical location. In
> hindsight, we could have multi-homed our collocations. Why can't service
> providers multi home their edge systems to accept incoming calls from
> two physical locations? If a service provider did this, they would have
> two completely independent facilities, potentially thousands of miles
> apart, connected to different upstream providers. I can't think of
> anything short of nuclear war that would destroy their ability to accept
> calls. If they did least cost routing, it wouldn't even matter if their
> providers failed. China gets hit by a meteor and NO provider can deliver
> calls to China? Fine... at least you can still call everywhere else.
>
> Maybe it still had some holes, but jeez, at least we tried to deliver
> high quality service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>   
There is no one here not doing best-effort redundancy, what the first 
gentleman had said was a network with NO single points of failure. 
Clearly that is a pipe dream. To the person with six second failover, 
that 6 seconds would have dropped calls and dialing out issues resulting 
in complaints. You would then tell your customer that you got it working 
immediately and often they don't care, they are still angry about the 
dropped call. MY point is, VOIP is good, great even, but anyone 
expecting a less than 20 year old tech to be more reliable than a tech 
that has been around for over a hundred (PSTN) needs to spend some more 
time thinking about that.

Anthony