[e2e] Re: crippled Internet
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Thu Apr 26 06:30:32 PDT 2001
> experience with actually using audio tools is that generally the net
> is not the main problem so long as neither end is dial up and both
> ends haev good analog audio setups - can cite lots of papers pointing
> at the problems mostly being with mikes and speakers - typical tier 1
> and 2 paths are fine when there isnt inter-provider congestion.
this makes sense. thank you!
scott called me voice to apply a clue-by-four.
o voip packets are time-stamped, so the receiver can filter some jitter.
(i like that relative stamping is sufficient. the absoloute needed to
measure one-way delay/jitter is a pain in the operational butt. you
try getting a gps antenna on the roof of a bunker-style pop)
o there can be echo through analog gear at an end, or because mic and
earpiece are air-coupled. so echo cancellation is relevant.
o codecs can introduce *significant* delay. but, as i said, a network
operator i can't do much about delay.
[ and craig and a few others also passed on useful clue ]
a whole lot of folk have written to tell me that voip actually works and
that i don't need to get too upset that i can't really deploy qos because
it is not clear it is a critical need.
so my interest remains in the distribution of jitter in time and in jitter
clumping. there are issues i have yet to understand here:
o have folk characterized what is good/acceptable/bad?
o do we have good ippm-style techniques to measure on those dimensions?
the point was raised that folk do see occasional very large queuing delays.
i have seen single-hop delays (i.e. routing has nothing to do with it)
going into the multi-second range. because of the bandwidth delay product
on trans-oceanic links, routers have *really* big buffers, so they can
have gawdawful queues. but folk are still chasing *why* they have these
sudden exciting spurts of scary long queues.
randy
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list