[VoiceOps] Maximum latency

[Anthony Orlando]

NIST used to have an impairment app for injecting latency etc.  Been many years since I've used it.

      From: Matthew M. Gamble <mgamble at thoughtfire.ca>
 To: Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com>; "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 1:27 PM
 Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Maximum latency
   
#yiv3088174526 #yiv3088174526 -- _filtered #yiv3088174526 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3088174526 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3088174526 #yiv3088174526 p.yiv3088174526MsoNormal, #yiv3088174526 li.yiv3088174526MsoNormal, #yiv3088174526 div.yiv3088174526MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3088174526 a:link, #yiv3088174526 span.yiv3088174526MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3088174526 a:visited, #yiv3088174526 span.yiv3088174526MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3088174526 span.yiv3088174526EmailStyle17 {font-family:Calibri;color:windowtext;}#yiv3088174526 span.yiv3088174526msoIns {text-decoration:underline;color:teal;}#yiv3088174526 .yiv3088174526MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3088174526 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3088174526 div.yiv3088174526WordSection1 {}#yiv3088174526 I use a FreeBSD box as a bump-in-the-wire to test and introduce additional latency, packet loss, and jitter using ipfw – this is a pretty good overview of how to do it: http://fjoanis.github.io/2013/08/31/Network_Simulation_FreeBSD_DummyNet/    From: VoiceOps <voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org> on behalf of Carlos Alvarez <caalvarez at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 2:13 PM
To: "voiceops at voiceops.org" <voiceops at voiceops.org>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Maximum latency    Those are some excellent points, Ivan.  They do indeed transfer calls regularly between agents in various US cities, so I assume the foreign ones will also.  I'll have to ask.    The US agents are on MPLS to us, 2-3ms at most.    Also, my satellite phone seems to have around 700ms delay, which is quite challenging.  I should try synthesizing 250ms for them and let them try it.  Not sure how, but assume there's some open source out there to do it.          On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Ivan Kovacevic <ivan.kovacevic at startelecom.ca> wrote: 
  The reality is that you can’t get away from it. A private circuit may cut it by 10% and provide more stable Jitter… but that’s it. So your client and 500,000 other agents in the Philippines and India are in the same boat.   Where latency gets really nasty and there is some scope to optimize is on call transfers/conferences. Make sure there is never hairpinning through the off-shore call centre. Or that call transfers or conferences have to double up on the path. It will depend on where the media gateways for the solution reside and whether you have any optimization when multiple call legs are made through your service.    Not sure if this helps…   Best Regards,   Ivan Kovacevic Vice President, Client Services Star Telecom |www.startelecom.ca | SIP Based Services for Contact Centers | LinkedIn   From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org]On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez
Sent: March 22, 2017 1:59 PM
To: voiceops at voiceops.org
Subject: [VoiceOps] Maximum latency   One of our larger customers is about to launch a new call center in Malaysia.  The connection there is fast, the trace looks surprisingly clean and short, but latency is consistently at 239-245ms.  We've never knowingly had a connection over 130ms.  Does anyone have experiences, good or bad, with latency approaching a quarter second?  The jitter level seems fine, so I believe they'll just have a delay but decent call quality.   Error! Filename not specified. 
   _______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps at voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20170322/cf9da4bf/attachment-0001.html>