[VoiceOps] Geographic redundancy

[Robin Rodriguez]

On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Kenny Sallee wrote:

> OK I see - from a CLEC perspective - is it a legal requirement to do  
> so?  I've read some of this tonight: http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/How+to+start+a+Clec 
>  and although it's mentioned a bit I'm not clear on if it's a legal  
> requirement of a CLEC (or just implied because in 1996 that's just  
> the way it was)
>
> ITSP vs CLEC redundancy sounds like it's quite different then - if  
> you must have SS7 links.

No, not sure how you got this idea, you think every mid-sized ISP in  
the '90s had connections to the service control points? For a CLEC to  
get a lot of the O/T benefits SS7 interconnection would be desirable,  
but not required.

>
> From an ITSP perspective - redundancy sounds like it comes down to  
> IP latency between signalling entities  and their capabilities,  
> hardware, and cash (like mentioned below).

What you are describing is QoS from an ITSP perspective, redundancy  
from an ITSP perspective would entail things like anycast, service  
records, bgp announcements across diverse circuits, and geographic  
diversity of POPs

>
> Along those lines - I'm reading up on BW and geographical HA...http://www.broadsoft.com/products/broadworks/platform/#network-geographic 
>   -- anyone out there actually who has actually implemented it - if  
> so what's your experiences if you can share on list?
>

Sounds like linux-HA style workings to me, but I have no exposure to  
broadsoft products.

>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Alex Balashov <abalashov at evaristesys.com 
> > wrote:
> Kenny Sallee wrote:
>
> On a curiosity note - why would you even need to interconnect with  
> SS7 to the PSTN when you can SIP peer to all the major carriers?   
> There can be an argument for backup to SIP peering that makes  
> sense.  Maybe it's cheaper?  But outside of those what other  
> benefits are there (don't misread my tone here - I'm really asking)?
>
> If you're just an ITSP, you may not need to, strictly speaking.  But  
> if you're a CLEC, you do, and the original question seemed to be  
> heavily concerned with making CLEC facilities redundant.
>
> Beyond that, it's a matter of opinion.  My experience has been that  
> SIP peering isn't terribly mature;  reliability and interop issues  
> abound. I've had a number of high-volume customers that gave up and  
> went to TDM access circuits after they realised that their top tech  
> people spend 90% of all days dealing with SIP issues from their O/T  
> providers.
>
> It's the usual litany of crap.  formatting differences (E.164 vs.  
> ten-digit), buggy in-band DTMF, very buggy RFC2833 (out-of-band)  
> DTMF, caller ID and CNAM (From vs. Remote-Party-ID vs. P-Asserted- 
> Identity), QoS, one-way audio, dropped calls, DSP bugs in ISDN<- 
> >VoIP gateways, etc.  When they move to TDM these problems seem to  
> magically go away.
>
> But I have other customers that just don't seem to have a lot of  
> these problems, either.  It's a coin toss.
>
>
> -- 
> Alex Balashov
> 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

--
Robin D. Rodriguez
rrodriguez at ifbyphone.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20090812/22e1e7ee/attachment.html>