Topic 'Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations.' in forum 'VOIP Tech Chat' - dslreports.com

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

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:43:59 EDT

w1ve posted : 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 < 4mS. I used to host on thw west coast, and had ping times in the 2mS range. The POPs you are suggesting make perfect sense.
--
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting

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

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:35:02 EDT

anon posted : 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.

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

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:54:57 EDT

Davesnothere posted :

said by mozerd:

+1

ESPECIALLY automatic fail-over between PoPs

And this too, of course.

Exact quantity of servers and their locations - YOU choose. :)

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

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:54:07 EDT

Davesnothere posted :

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.

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:08:03 EDT

MartinM posted :

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

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:52:55 EDT

JJ_GTA posted : 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.

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 18:30:02 EDT

drak0 posted : 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 :/

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:59:38 EDT

pende_tim posted : 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.

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:56:21 EDT

pende_tim posted : +2 on auto-fail over

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:54:23 EDT

MartinM posted :

said by chrisedwards:

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

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:24:03 EDT

Toollio posted :

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.

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:08:20 EDT

taytong888 posted : 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?

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:45:00 EDT

MartinM posted : We're not keeping more to have "ok ones".
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:54:07 EDT

dirt_diver posted : 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..)

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:47:01 EDT

MartinM posted : 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

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:40:34 EDT

Jonathan987 posted : 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!

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:23:59 EDT

papaskitch posted : I'm generally a very happy voip.ms customer, except when it's broken ;-)

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

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

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:58:26 EDT

chrisedwards posted : 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).

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:18:25 EDT

OZO posted :

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...

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:56:47 EDT

phoneuser posted : 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.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:29:27 EDT

mau108 posted : yes please setup one location for voicemail! switching servers and having a different voice mail greeting is annoying as hell!

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:26:35 EDT

lilarry posted :

said by NefCanuck:

One other thing I would strongly urge you to consider if a consolidation of POP's is in the cards. Automatic fallover in case a particular POP goes down and one central place for all voicemail for the POP's.

Dittos to this. Even now, when we "server-hop", or when you reroute when a server is down, the voice mail issue becomes a problem. However you do it, the same voice mail accounts need to be accessible from all servers. The same is true for Internal extensions - they should be able to work across servers. And automatic failover would also provide some additional peace of mind.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:14:19 EDT

gerick posted :

said by gweidenh:

Go with Dallas for your Texas location.

Most Texas ISP traffic is routed through Dallas before it hits the wild wonderful internet.

Ditto this. Anytime I check speeds with AT&T, it is always shorter ping time from San Antonio or Austin to Dallas than it is to Houston. I think that there are larger pipes out of Dallas.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:39:51 EDT

DSLR98004 posted : MartinM: I support your plan. I live just outside of Seattle, but Houston is my primary POP (with Los Angeles as my fallback).

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:29:26 EDT

anon posted : My feedback is that I would like to see two or three servers that will automatically failover and work in such a way that I do not have to change the settings in my ata or on the voip.ms panel when the connection changes to another server.

Each server will have a potentially infinite capacity simply by plugging in another drive or box or whatever it is that it takes to expand the capacity.

If you get a ddos attack your super servers will hardly notice it; your customers will not notice it at all.

The servers will be as reliable as a pots line.

I will be happy to pay higher fees for this.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:22:00 EDT

amd64now posted : I think this is a great idea. Automatic load balancing and failover would only improve the service.

As a customer, I sometimes wonder when I have issues if it's server related. For example, the server has too many customers connected. Load balancing would solve this issue.

Like some customers, I have experienced loss of service due to a pop issues. This could have been a result of a server issue. A server fail over would solve this issue.

MartinM, if this plan is accepted, what would be a rough time line to have the geo locations established?

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:57:31 EDT

Mango posted :

said by OZO:

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:55:36 EDT

MartinM posted : Let's not get this off topic and derail the thread from its primary objective. All providers have problems at some point. (Hurricane, Data Center failures, [D]DoS).

We're seeking feedback from active customers about their opinion of the possibility of having fewer POP's, not another debate about geo location vs call centric, this has been beaten to death by fanatics of both sides.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:50:02 EDT

PX Eliezer posted :

said by Blunderbuss :

It isn't just for redundancy; as Martin has said, it is easier to deal with a problem when it affects only 10 percent of the users rather than 100 percent.

Why should servers be going down at all?

When did you hear of servers going down at Voipo, CallWithUs, Localphone or Voxbeam, Ooma, Anveo, Junction Networks, Packet8, and so forth? Not with any regularity, for sure. Maybe once or twice at most in several years.

The funny thing is that another company that had a lot of problems with server issues was [ViaTalk]---and THEY believed in having their servers widely scattered too.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:35:50 EDT

anon posted :

Your premise is clearly false because they have servers in TEN (10) different US and Canadian cities. That's way beyond what's needed for reasonable redundancy.

It isn't just for redundancy; as Martin has said, it is easier to deal with a problem when it affects only 10 percent of the users rather than 100 percent.

[Now, I'm sure that someone will jump in and say that CallCentric has the opposite geosituation....But they do need to continue to work to address this.]

Why would they bother when according to them, or maybe it is according to posters here, it is only a storm occurring once in 100 or 200 years that will ever cause them a problem?

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:18:33 EDT

IanBarnes posted : It's not relevant how many people live in certain area because if these are "Super Pops", then each one will need to handle a large amount of connections, while giving decent latency to all corners of North America. It has to be a balance all the way around. Many times it depends on what ISP is being used and what backbone providers the ISP is using.

These cities would be fine.....

New York uses Chicago POP (5 hops 20ms)
New York uses Dallas POP (8 hops 44ms)
Washington uses Chicago POP (6 hops 24ms)
Washington uses Dallas POP (8 hops 32ms)
Miami uses Chicago (9 hops 32ms)
Miami uses Dallas (9 hops 28ms)
Atlanta uses Chicago (8 hops 24ms)
Atlanta uses Dallas (8 hops 20ms)

Oh, and I do think you're spongeworthy ;)
--
Ian Barnes
SofSwitch Communications Inc.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:24:33 EDT

PX Eliezer posted :

said by Blunderbuss :

I never thought they were selling low ping-time, but redundant servers, so that if one went down you could switch to another.

With even two servers they will have redundancy.

If they were doing that, they could have half of their servers in Houston, and half in Montreal.

Or they could have 1/3 in Montreal, 1/3 in New York, and 1/3 in Dallas.

Your premise is clearly false because they have servers in TEN (10) different US and Canadian cities. That's way beyond what's needed for reasonable redundancy.

[Now, I'm sure that someone will jump in and say that CallCentric has the opposite geosituation. Point taken, although their core setup utilizes massive physical hardware that doesn't lend itself to virtualization on servers. But they do need to continue to work to address this.]

Be that as it may, lots of Voip.MS customers talk all the time about ping ping ping. To many of them it is more important than football, hockey, food, or sex.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:40:41 EDT

anon posted :

Quality is more important than quantity, and the concept of super-low ping has been oversold.

The irony is, you will now have to un-sell it.

I never thought they were selling low ping-time, but redundant servers, so that if one went down you could switch to another.

With even two servers they will have redundancy.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:12:10 EDT

mozerd posted : +1

ESPECIALLY automatic fail-over between PoPs

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:14:29 EDT

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

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:51:15 EDT

decx posted : As others have said, if the move will increase server uptime and call routing reliability while maintaining a decent data routing/latency then I'm all.

Regarding the Seattle server, I find it pretty good. I use the Seattle server from various locations around the world and it has worked for me so far with only a few minor issues.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:32:45 EDT

PX Eliezer posted : Gee, the second person who thinks that the whole US East Coast is not spongeworthy.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that one POP for the US and one POP for Canada would be fine.

But [IF] there are going to be 4-6 POPs then it is insane to not have one serving the East....

Dallas
Montreal
Chicago
Los Angeles
Vancouver

Where would people in Miami look to? Or people in Atlanta? Or in Washington? Or New York?

The New York metro area alone has 19 million people. In other words, more than half the population of the whole country of Canada.
»factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tab···pe=table

Really, now.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:21:01 EDT

TBaritone posted : I've been using Voip.ms as my primary phone service for over two years now. I was excited when the Seattle server came online, with a ping 1/5th of that of the Los Angeles server. In use, though, there was no perceivable difference in voice delay or call quality. And last weekend, when we were re-routed to Tampa (with a 6x longer ping), there was still no perceivable difference.

So, while the Seattle server is a great selling point when I convince my friends to switch to voip.ms, I wouldn't be devastated if it were sacrificed for the better good.

BTW, Martin, the first line of your original post should say "not inappropriate". Or drop the "not" and just say "appropriate". :-)

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:10:03 EDT

IanBarnes posted : Martin,

I would agree that fewer "Super Pops" would be a good idea. I would definitely add one more server location in Vancouver and change New York to Chicago.

I think these would be the best locations for attaining a nice North American latency balance.

Dallas
Montreal
Chicago
Los Angeles
Vancouver
--
Ian Barnes
SofSwitch Communications Inc.

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

Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:07:50 EDT

OZO posted : The fewer POP centers you offer, the better. Ideally I'd like to know only one host and always connect to it.

Example - www.google.com. It allows all users to know and use just one host name to connect to. And I presume there is no big latency for all users around the country. At least I don't see ping time getting more then 27-28ms from whatever location I try... How do they do it? Do they provide different DNS resolutions for different geo-locations? Or may be they are using some very fast and reliable hosts just redirecting incoming connection? I don't know. But I know for sure, that it's possible to have global coverage, very high reliability and fast service (low ping tame) at the same time. Please try to make and use something similar.

BTW, I always expected, that your SIP servers (POP hosts) independently of their current location all use the same logic - 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.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:21:47 EDT

davekaye posted : I'm a new user coming from CC. Considering that they had one POP in NYC and I live in California I was always happy with their service (until I found out redundancy meant two of everything in NYC during Sandy). So it wouldn't bother me if you cut down on the sites as long as it meant better service and true redundancy. As far as DNS Srv I used it (CC) when they had the DDOS problems, but I truly never really understood what it meant and the difference with the previous configuration. As a good boy, I just followed their directions.

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:01:15 EDT

ctylor posted : I've been a user of voip.ms for 3 years, and so are my parents. Overall we have had a great experience and value and have no plans of leaving.

I would embrace this proposal, for simplifying things on our end as well as your end. I do experience occasional trouble with certain cities I'm registered to going offline or slowing down, and it takes a while for the admins at voip.ms to redirect the DNS elsewhere. DNS SRV should fix that problem.

Also with many sub-accounts due to using IP phones and smart phone apps, it means we have to register them all on the same city's server in order to be able to call "within" my account. So inertia kicks in, and means once I set up a city to register to, I am likely to never change it--which doesn't help your load balancing.

Please make whatever changes you need to do, and I will make the changes on our end to take advantage of the new geo locations structure. Please just provide some tips on settings to adjust like DNS SRV and anything else.

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:48:10 EDT

MartinM posted : It is still just a case study. We have 2 plans, one that is to reinforce our current infrastructure and one that was to consolidate a few POPs in favor of more "beefed up" POPs. No matter what we end up doing, we'll beef up our setup, but we want to explore alternatives.

Nothing has been decided or done yet, we're mainly looking for feedback from our current customer base.

Thanks to all who have contributed so far.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:12:14 EDT

XCOM posted :

said by azmike:

• Could you provide in advance all possible IP's that will be "SRV'ed" up? Only reason I ask is it would fit our existing firewall policy nicely. Actually switching to IAX from SIP has helped however Voip.ms is not our only provider. SIP/RTP along with a couple other RTP "like things" that we use have made firewalling tricky.

• I'm assuming RTP would still be proxy'ed as it is today?

OooO my..... You just reminded me the night mare I went through with CC and their DNS SRV and having to guess the blocks and IP's

I hope that if voip.ms does go that route that they are open to share that information via ticket for their customers.

If not than... I vote No to the DNS SRV idea.
--
[nUll@dcypher ~]$

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:07:04 EDT

azmike posted : Am actually not in favor of super POPs at all.

• Prefer the flexibility offered by current topology.

• We have a relatively simple script run from cron on our asterisk box that essentially parses "asterisk -rx 'iax2 show registry'" with appropriate delays/retries.

• If necessary, Using Voip.ms API this allows automatic fail over under our control.

• We used to have a great route to Seattle. As of 10/24/12 it's been very "flakey" for lack of a better term. I'm afraid we'll get "load balanced" on to a bad route autonomously.

A couple questions that come to mind if you did implement this.

• Could you provide in advance all possible IP's that will be "SRV'ed" up? Only reason I ask is it would fit our existing firewall policy nicely. Actually switching to IAX from SIP has helped however Voip.ms is not our only provider. SIP/RTP along with a couple other RTP "like things" that we use have made firewalling tricky.

• I'm assuming RTP would still be proxy'ed as it is today?

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:51:27 EDT

XCOM posted :

said by nunya:

One thing I would like to see is automagic failover if a POP shits the bed.

I vote for that idea.
I am quite happy with the services and as far as super nodes I am ok with it.... Though I am very happy with the Houston POP and I wouldn't like to change from there :P
--
[nUll@dcypher ~]$

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:40:35 EDT

nunya posted : Hate to see Chicago off the list. A lot of people have VPS's colo'd in Chi-town (popular location and cheap!) and the 2 ms hop is kind of awesome.
I happen to be a believer in the "low ping" church, be it reality or just superstition.
One thing I would like to see is automagic failover if a POP shits the bed.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:01:49 EDT

gweidenh posted : Go with Dallas for your Texas location.

Most Texas ISP traffic is routed through Dallas before it hits the wild wonderful internet.

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:39:08 EDT

NefCanuck posted : I think if you'd be better able to handle emergencies and deal with growth in a more organized fashion, that "super pops" might well be the way to go.

Though I notice that London isn't in the list of POP's that you are considering keeping. Does this mean that you're considering giving up your European foothold?

One other thing I would strongly urge you to consider if a consolidation of POP's is in the cards. Automatic fallover in case a particular POP goes down and one central place for all voicemail for the POP's.

I might well have tried more "POP" testing instead of sticking it out on Montreal2 if it weren't for the fact that I would have to record a VM greeting for every POP I tried.

NefCanuck

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

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:13:58 EDT

MartinM posted : Surprised to hear that, consensus generally has been that our support was available and one of the better one when considering the cost we have. But yes, we're getting off-topic. Send me a PM if you have pending issues.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms