Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
2453
share rss forum feed

phoneuser

join:2012-12-19
New York, NY
reply to MartinM

Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your plans. Here are some random thoughts to add to the mix from a long-time customer and forum lurker.

Consider having exactly two carefully chosen POPs. Expose them with separate names in DNS at first for simplicity, but prepare for the time when you can move to one name and control their use via DNS.

* More POPs means more to manage and keep in sync. One is "easy", two is usually "hard", but anything more than two is usually "much harder". Two POPs (each provisioned to handle your entire load) gives you site redundancy, is simpler to manage, and, importantly, is easier to get exactly right.

* Don't sweat the geographic diversity issue too much. Much more important is basic datacenter reliability and quality/diversity of connectivity. And don't rule out Las Vegas as a candidate, with its low earthquake and weather vulnerability, plentiful power, and great connectivity.

* SRV records are great in principle, but we've all learned recently that real-world client support for them is spotty at best, and incorrect at worst. Good old-fashioned round-robin A records with shortish TTLs are almost as good in principle, and often better in real-world practice.

* If you do use SRV records (as well as A records), don't make the mistake of returning more than will fit in an untruncated UDP response, even though doing so is perfectly "correct". Too many client resolvers (incorrectly) don't retry over TCP, and too many client firewalls (incorrectly) pass DNS requests only via UDP. If you absolutely need lots of hostnames, then define multiple A records per hostname, or use shorter hostnames (since SRV record hostnames "MUST NOT" be compressed), or something.

* Set as a longer-term goal making POP choice functionally irrelevant by syncing voicemail between the POPs, decoupling DID routing from user agent registration (like Anveo's Geo POPs, I think, but chosen and controlled by you), and much more that I'm sure I'm missing.

* Eventually, go further still by using a single DNS proxy name, and respond with the SRV or A records you want to based on load, server status, geographic estimate of client location, or whatever else you choose. Take this out of the hands of your customers. Some will complain that they want to choose their POP based on the quality of their routes to and from a particular POP. Some of this can be mitigated by your datacenter choices and the diversity and quality of their connectivity. It's not a perfect solution, but you need to control your service, and you need to eliminate your customers' need to fiddle with their endpoint and fiddle with your user portal to perform POP failover. I know you already do some of this when you want to direct customers away from a troubled POP, but you need to solve the resulting DID routing and voicemail issues, and you can go further and really control your network yourself, and do so better than most of your customers can.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to Mango
said by Mango:

said by OZO:

directing RTP traffic using shortest distance (in Internet terms) between SIP client and RTP host, serving corresponding DID. If it's not, please do it ASAP. It will improve quality of voice for us, customers. Thanks.

Though I agree with you, I suspect they will not do this and I understand why. Making this work properly requires significantly more difficult configuration on the user's side. They likely believe (correctly) that this would increase support load significantly, and also bad PR when people blame one-way audio issues on them, when they're actually caused by a misconfigured ATA.

Latency becomes very important issue, especially when number of calls to/from cell phones is increasing. From my experience, quality of the voice could degrade dramatically when cell phones add their big portion to the overall delay. That's why routing of RTP requires special attention and careful optimization. And that's why I asked VoIP.ms to offer direct media (or bypass media) mode option for those clients, who can handle it (have equipment and needed configuration). In other words, I don't mind to connect to a SIP server, located even on the opposite part of the Earth. But I do care very much about the latency, added to the voice channel (RTP traffic).
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

chrisedwards

join:2008-05-17
Oakville, ON
reply to MartinM
This is still a fairly recent thread so I thought I'd add my thoughts:

1. I don't see a Europe POP mentioned. We have employees travel frequently to Europe and it's nice to have a European POP that they can reliably connect to while overseas. I haven't tried the New York POP though, so it's possible that in various locations in Europe the NY POP would have sufficient pings. In any case I'd love to see a European POP kept.

2. I like the New York POP selection. New York has good connectivity to South America. I get 100-120ms pings to Sao Paulo in Brazil. While higher than what'd you'd see domestically, it's workable.

3. I like Los Angeles POP which has good connectivity to Mexico (~60ms to Puerto Vallarta).

papaskitch

join:2007-02-10
Woodbridge, ON
reply to MartinM
I'm generally a very happy voip.ms customer, except when it's broken

If the "mega-pops" improve reliability, I'm in.

Jonathan987

join:2006-03-17
North York, ON
reply to MartinM
Hi, as long as there is a POP in Canada for the Toronto/Montreal customers it would be good. But there needs to be more capacity given to your Montreal servers if you plan on making that the main connection for your Toronto customers.

The reason I don't mind having to connect to Montreal servers is that the ping is just as low it was to the Toronto servers because iWeb (I'm assuming your Montreal hosters) has full unconditional peering on torix.

Hope this helps with the decision!

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
This idea has been put on shelves for the moment and reducing the number of locations is no longer part of our short term plans. We want to thank everyone who provided feedback in this thread and via private messaging.

We're busy updating Montreal, Toronto, Chicago and NY with a new infrastructure that will allow for transparent scaling in the future.

We're also looking to deploy a POP in Vancouver for west coast based Canadians.

Regards,
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

dirt_diver

join:2012-12-21
Louisville, KY
reply to MartinM
It's more about Jitter than ping. I have clients that connect from Charleston,SC. to San Jose (on a diff provider) with a consistent 115ms ping. ZERO problems. The provider is stable, in a high end DC. I support the Mega pop. I would rather have 5 great connections, than 10 'ok' ones, and not have to spend my time hunting down stable pops and configuring my DID's and end users to a new POP every couple of weeks when a flakey one decides to act up. Consolidate. (Auto failover would be nice, but if a mega pop alleviated lots of 'flakeyness', you shouldnt have to fail over as often..)

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
We're not keeping more to have "ok ones".
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

taytong888

join:2005-06-20
Nepean, ON
reply to MartinM
Hello MartinM,

Vancouver is already served by Seattle. Why not have a robust POP in Calgary to serve the rest of British Columbia, as well as fast-growing Alberta, Saskatchewan and possible Manitoba?

Toollio

join:2003-11-17
Brazil/Cda
reply to chrisedwards
said by chrisedwards:

This is still a fairly recent thread so I thought I'd add my thoughts:

1. I don't see a Europe POP mentioned. We have employees travel frequently to Europe and it's nice to have a European POP that they can reliably connect to while overseas. I haven't tried the New York POP though, so it's possible that in various locations in Europe the NY POP would have sufficient pings. In any case I'd love to see a European POP kept.

2. I like the New York POP selection. New York has good connectivity to South America. I get 100-120ms pings to Sao Paulo in Brazil. While higher than what'd you'd see domestically, it's workable.

3. I like Los Angeles POP which has good connectivity to Mexico (~60ms to Puerto Vallarta).

I agree that consideration should be given to customers outside North America. I'm in Salvador, Brazil, most of the time and I find that Montreal offers me one of the best ping times. In my case it beats New York and other U.S. servers. It might be prudent to do some testing to see whether the servers you intend to keep will satisfy customers in Europe, South America and elsewhere.

Latency tends to be overrated. I find up to 160ms perfectly acceptable, with no lag in conversation. Like the poster I've quoted, I am perfectly happy with 120, which is what I get from Salvador to Montreal. I've been using various VOIP services for years from Brazil and, of course, never get the kind of low latency numbers I get while in North America. But it's never been a problem. As somebody else points, out, jitter is another issue--bad jitter is a real problem.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
reply to chrisedwards
said by chrisedwards:

This is still a fairly recent thread so I thought I'd add my thoughts:

1. I don't see a Europe POP mentioned. We have employees travel frequently to Europe and it's nice to have a European POP that they can reliably connect to while overseas. I haven't tried the New York POP though, so it's possible that in various locations in Europe the NY POP would have sufficient pings. In any case I'd love to see a European POP kept.

london.voip.ms is in Europe. The data center is close to London, and the bandwidth has direct peering to with London, England.
--
Martin - VoiP.ms


pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
reply to mozerd
+2 on auto-fail over


pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Blunderbuss
The fallacy in the '100' and '200' year event comparison is that in NJ we have had 3 100 year events in the past 2 years!
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

drak0

join:2009-05-16
reply to MartinM
I'm sad to hear that this plan has been put on the shelf. My wife uses voip.ms for her business line and Houston has for the most part been very good, but not having a graceful failover sucks... especially when I get a frantic call about the phones not working :/

JJ_GTA
Premium
join:2009-04-01
Ontario
reply to MartinM
From a phone *user* point of view, I don't care what you do or how you do it. Just make the dial tone reliable. In the old day of POTS we didn't ask Bell how the infrastructure was built but we sure did depend on it. (Nobody knew when the phone was out of service unless we actually used it, compared to now, us knowing in an instant with alerts for failed registrations)

The challenge is how does my $5+ per month make a viable solution to design and build to make sure I can count on you for a quality call every time. I have to expect outages and failures, just not on a regular basis.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to drak0
said by drak0:

I'm sad to hear that this plan has been put on the shelf. My wife uses voip.ms for her business line and Houston has for the most part been very good, but not having a graceful failover sucks... especially when I get a frantic call about the phones not working :/

The study had nothing to do with the quality of service. We'll continue to push toward flawless QoS.
--
Martin - VoiP.ms


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to SCADAGeo
said by SCADAGeo:

I'll vote for any plan that increases reliability and yields the highest benefit-to-cost ratio.

 
+1

That about sums up MY feelings.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to mozerd
said by mozerd:

+1

ESPECIALLY automatic fail-over between PoPs

 
And this too, of course.

Exact quantity of servers and their locations - YOU choose.


Jeffawa

@rogers.com
reply to MartinM
I would not mind a consolidation of servers. My concern is that I have tried both Montreal and Toronto servers and had problems. Since moving to Chicago I have had no problems. With consolidated servers my options for bad quality become limited.

w1ve
Premium
join:2007-12-28
Hancock, NH
reply to MartinM
I'm 100% in favor of it, and have been a customer for years.

I have a hosted PBX in NJ, ping time to NY --
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting