[182592] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SIP trunking providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Fri Jul 24 04:14:01 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:17:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <E968676B-9B3C-4D5F-9AF9-F0D2F355DD1C@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
That's why I asked for one with everything local.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>=20
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:56:47 PM=20
Subject: Re: SIP trunking providers=20
Nor will the fact that your particular trunking provider is local, so I=E2=
=80=99m not sure what you seek to accomplish, then.=20
Owen=20
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 12:24 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>=20
> I have several Asterisk VMs running in my own facility, but that doesn't =
change the fact that a particular provider's media gateway that SIP reinvit=
es me to is somewhere non-local.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>=20
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 8:04:24 AM=20
> Subject: Re: SIP trunking providers=20
>=20
> Why not set up a small Asterisk box in a local datacenter and only trunk =
out the non-local calls?=20
>=20
> Owen=20
>=20
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 03:36 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> I want the gateway in Chicago as well.=20
>>=20
>> I am Chicago based. The end users are Chicago based. Therefore the origi=
nation would be coming from a Chicago area gateway. Half of the calls (inbo=
und would be guaranteed to be local as they'd be coming in through a local =
tandem anyway. Most of the termination traffic would again be to local numb=
ers, therefore would again have to be through local tandems.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----=20
>> Mike Hammett=20
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
>> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>>=20
>> ----- Original Message -----=20
>>=20
>> From: "Nathan Anderson" <nathana@fsr.com>=20
>> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:11:37 AM=20
>> Subject: RE: SIP trunking providers=20
>>=20
>> Maybe I'm missing something here, but what does it matter if the RTP fro=
m your perspective ends in Chicago or not? If it does end in Chicago, that =
only means they are proxying the audio before sending it on to the actual m=
edia gateway for that call where it finally drops onto the PSTN. So all tha=
t happens is that the audio latency remains the same (or worse, because of =
the additional, unnecessary proxy) AND that the actual media gateway remain=
s hidden from you. You won't be able to actually test and see the latency t=
o the MG, and you will be under the (false) impression that latency across =
all calls is equally "good" because you are only measuring RTT to a specifi=
c and common media proxy. By sending the audio directly to an MG closer to =
the point of exit from IP-land, it is taking a more direct route to the cal=
lee than you are seemingly asking for.=20
>>=20
>> If you're not talking about adding a proxy to the equation, are you expe=
cting to find a provider in Chicago that immediately goes from IP to PSTN w=
ithin Chicago, regardless of the actual destination of the call? Circuit-sw=
itched TDM is not a no-latency connection. Physics is involved here. The fa=
rther apart the caller is from the callee, the more latency there will be, =
regardless of the medium. All other things being equal (similar network pat=
h, etc.), I doubt IP packet switching significantly increases the latency o=
ver and above TDM call trunking. But I'm not an expert, and again, if I'm m=
issing something here, I would love to be proven wrong.=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Nathan Anderson=20
>> First Step Internet, LLC=20
>> nathana@fsr.com=20
>>=20
>> ________________________________________=20
>> From: NANOG [nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett [nanog@i=
cs-il.net]=20
>> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 1:04 PM=20
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
>> Subject: Re: SIP trunking providers=20
>>=20
>> I too am looking for the Chicago area. Low volume. I'm looking for peopl=
e whose SIP and RTP hit the end of the road in Chicago. Not interested in s=
omeone whose SIP servers are in LA , but will redirect me to the nearest ga=
teway... without telling me where said gateway is.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> -----=20
>> Mike Hammett=20
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
>> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>>=20
>> ----- Original Message -----=20
>>=20
>> From: "Rafael Possamai" <rafael@gav.ufsc.br>=20
>> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 4:40:48 PM=20
>> Subject: SIP trunking providers=20
>>=20
>> Would anyone in the list be able to recommend a SIP trunk provider in th=
e=20
>> Chicago area? Not a VoIP expert, so just looking for someone with previo=
us=20
>> experience.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Thanks,=20
>> Rafael=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
