dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
42
share rss forum feed

nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:8

2 recommendations

reply to ConstantineM

Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with!

said by ConstantineM:

How it occur with the smaller providers, if nearly every other provider that is much smaller than CallCentric is employing geographic redundancy? Both Anveo and voip.ms have a multi-server setup across the world.

Add Future Nine to that list.

The problem isn't that it's hard or expensive to do it (it's not) - the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.


UHF
All static, all day, Forever
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·Callcentric
·Dish Network

1 edit
said by nitzan:

the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.

I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box!

Edit: this isn't meant as an attack on Nitzan on F9, just saying there's different ways to do things, and one isn't necessarily and better/worse than the other. They bot have advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
said by UHF:

I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box!

They're also doing their own switching and interconnecting with actual telecommunications networks. Whereas, these Asterix box providers are basically reselling services and using trunks wholesaled from other providers and are essentially tier 3 voip providers.


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to UHF
said by UHF:

said by nitzan:

the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.

I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box!

What you have to understand though is that those systems are much more complicated. If it were as simple as you have stated, then why are all those Verizon CO's still down and no one has phone service? They should have a backup system on the other side of the country for all their interconnects.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:

said by ConstantineM:

How it occur with the smaller providers, if nearly every other provider that is much smaller than CallCentric is employing geographic redundancy? Both Anveo and voip.ms have a multi-server setup across the world.

Add Future Nine to that list.

FutureNine has had its own failures, as I recall.

said by nitzan:

The problem isn't that it's hard or expensive to do it (it's not) - the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.

I like and respect you, but sometimes you say that CC systems are proprietary, and at other times you say that their systems aren't much different from anyone else's.