Comment Re:same mistake all over again [corrected] (Score 1) 388
And then, for the nth time, RDP, gaming, security cameras, and lots of other services won't work correctly either, because they require more bandwidth and latency that is at least as low as VoIP.
And for the nth time, you haven't addressed the issue - residential bandwidth is not committed. If its not committed, how do you guarantee the priority traffic over non-priority traffic when the available traffic fluctuates?
RDP, gaming and security cameras may or may not have higher real-time requirements, but I would argue that the user of these applications is more willing to accept issues caused by network fluctuations. RDP and security cameras especially. see my earlier arguments why gaming and voip aren't comparable from a usage perspective.
RDP, gaming and security cameras may or may not have higher real-time requirements, but I would argue that the user of these applications is more willing to accept issues caused by network fluctuations. RDP and security cameras especially. see my earlier arguments why gaming and voip aren't comparable from a usage perspective.
With a decent codec, VoIP requires less than 8kbps, and it pretty much doesn't matter whether you use TCP, UDP, or some other network protocol. Using G.711 for VoIP is just plain stupid
G.729 @ 20ms frames is 24kbps with UDP/IP overhead. G.711 runs a majority of all Voip today. I agree that other codecs will take over, however, I think they'll be closer to 40kbps with overhead to deliver MOS scores closer to 4.0. In the end, it doesn't matter. Its not an issue of bandwidth or latency, but an issue of guaranteed delivery.
I pointed out the possibility that real-time traffic flows through a VPN, you point out the possibility that a VPN might not carry real-time traffic. My point is relevant to the discussion, yours is not: if ISPs support VPNs (and they have to), they have to support them well enough so that the real-time traffic that may flow through those VPNs arrives in time at the other end.
In fact, any use of VPN is
In fact, any use of VPN is
No, you didn't point that out. You made the claim that any use of VPN is.
Although I've enjoyed this conversation, let's call it quits. You haven't addressed my argument other than to call it far-fetched with no argument as to why it is. Your argument centers around claiming that the requirements of other traffic flows are higher than voip, which I don't dispute. I've spent several years deploying voip on networks, from the largest carriers to a residential ISP. I'm basing my argument on true network evidence and experience. VOIP works and is definately going to change the market. But for residential usage, the nature of an oversubscribed network gives the advantage to the entity that owns the oversubscribed network.
Let's call it quits and let the market prove out who is correct. If your in the denver area, we could wager a beer on how it shakes out if you like. I'm always interested in meeting fellow passionate tech junkies.
Although I've enjoyed this conversation, let's call it quits. You haven't addressed my argument other than to call it far-fetched with no argument as to why it is. Your argument centers around claiming that the requirements of other traffic flows are higher than voip, which I don't dispute. I've spent several years deploying voip on networks, from the largest carriers to a residential ISP. I'm basing my argument on true network evidence and experience. VOIP works and is definately going to change the market. But for residential usage, the nature of an oversubscribed network gives the advantage to the entity that owns the oversubscribed network.
Let's call it quits and let the market prove out who is correct. If your in the denver area, we could wager a beer on how it shakes out if you like. I'm always interested in meeting fellow passionate tech junkies.
