[79138] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard, W. Lee)
Thu Mar 31 09:00:09 2005
From: "Howard, W. Lee" <L.Howard@stanleyassociates.com>
To: 'Jared Mauch' <jared@puck.nether.net>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:59:38 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of Jared Mauch
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:06 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around
> 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and
> leave space for my UDP packet streams.
>
> I think one of the major problems is that very few
> people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711
> frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because
> they can't set these more granular settings on their
> systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I
> think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not
> designed for high pps rates..
That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet
size curve and the latency curve? I mean, where would you set
it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and
intervleaving?
I'm outside of that "very few people," but I could imagine
wanting dynamic control--one packet size (latency) for a certain
calling plan (calls within the LAN, maybe even to anywhere on
my network if I control end-to-end QoS, and local calls) but
another for long distance.
> - jared
Lee
