[bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet and call center security

Thu Nov 21 00:34:19 BDT 2013

Dear Aniruddha Da,

I'm NOT clear about "SLA with the SP". Please help understand this.

And what will be basic parameters of this types of SLA. SP can provide the
best route to any customer based on destination and lowest latency and it is
suitable when destination is fixed or known.

But, as I assume, for call canter, calling destination and call originating
source is ANY. In that case, how SP can provide suitable solution.

But I believe, there might be others technique. Please share for our
understanding.

Regards, Farid

From: nog-bounces at bdnog.org [mailto:nog-bounces at bdnog.org] On Behalf Of
Aniruddha Barua
Sent: 21-Nov-2013 12:16 AM
To: Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager / 01678618243 /; Nurul Islam
Roman
Cc: nog at bdnog.org
Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet
and call center security

Dear Simon bhai, Roman bhai and other members, 

Thanks for your emails. I kind of predicted it right. The more we go towards
the core of global Internet, the less (or none as you've confirmed)
bandwidth management & traffic shaping we see. 

Actually I am not asking anything for our network. Our current total
bandwidth is 300 Mbps (through 4 IIGs) and we are doing fine with our
current bandwidth management mechanism. Besides we do not have any Call
Center as our customer at the moment. Some of our corporate customers use
International Video Conferencing (BTRC authorized of course) among multiple
countries simultaneously. They never reported any performance issue. 

I was looking at the original issue posted by Mr. Suvro Dev in a larger
view. Let's see this, 

OrigSite----ISP----UpstreamISP----TransitProv----TransitProv----TransitProv-
----UpstreamISP----ISP----TermSite 

A typical end-to-end path looks more or less like above where traffic
shaping is taking place at ISP and/or UpstreamISP. If there is any
bottleneck in any of the TransitProvs, then ISPs and UpstreamISPs will have
to escalate the issue to concerned TransitProv. My experience tells that
unless there is a DoS/DDoS attack, most of the time the bottleneck will go
away on its own by the time (or even long before) the TransitProvs get the
message. 

As far as ISP/UpstreamISP of TermSite (i.e. Hello World Comm. Ltd. here) is
concerned, Mr. Suvro can take the advices of the experts and seniors earlier
in this mailing list, esp. Palash Da's advices. Go for an SLA with the SP. 

Regarding Simon bhai's experience with Juniper device, I just remembered a
quote by Sir W. Churchill, "If you place over 10,000 regulations, you
ultimately destroy all respect for the law." The packets rebelled against
the thousands of featured regulations of Juniper and destroyed it. ;-) 

Best regards, 

ANIRUDDHA BARUA 
Email: aniruddha.barua at colbd.com, cto at colbd.com 

---------- Original Message ----------- 
From: "Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager / 01678618243 /"
<simon.baroi at fiberathome.net> 
To: Nurul Islam Roman <nurul at apnic.net> 
Cc: Aniruddha Barua <aniruddha.barua at colbd.com>, "nog at bdnog.org"
<nog at bdnog.org> 
Sent: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 23:02:07 +0600 
Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet
and call center security 

> Dear Anirudda Da, 
> 
> Thanks for your mail. If I'm wrong I think you are asking how bandwidth
can be controlled in large level. 
> 
> I have a very small experience in IIG. We do the bandwidth shaping in
physical level as port basis. We don't do anything on Packet level as like
Roman Vai said. But, all our cards are QUE cards. These QUE cards are very
expensive, but it will give you a very good result on shaping bandwidth at
the port. If you have more than 1gbps of Bandwidth to serve, I think you can
use Aggregated Ethernet (AE). Better to use 80% efficiency for each port. 
> 
> For Packet Shaping, I have a very worst experience on JUNIPER IDP 8200,
which is a 10GE transparent DPI. It should give us so many options to
control the packets, like blocking, passing etc. But, truly speaking your
browsing experience will be too much worst and when we crossed 1 gbps of
bandwidth it crashed and JUNIPER send a new one. 
> 
> - SIMON. 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Nurul Islam Roman <nurul at apnic.net>
wrote: 
> 

> 
> Transit operators normally do not shape traffic (bandwidth control) at
packet level. Except some rate limiting for ICMP etc etc destine to their
origin IP only. They normally control data rate at the signal level I.e.
DSL, Ethernet, STM etc. So at the packet level there is no issue as long as
their interface queue (depend on hardware capacity) can handle those.  
> 
> Transit path main goal is clear IP packet, no shaping, their routers don't
even check what QoS tag each packet is carrying. If you need any exception
it need to be done case by case with your transit operator/s.     
> 
> Regards 
> 
> -R 
> 
> 
> From: Aniruddha Barua <aniruddha.barua at colbd.com> 
> Date: Wednesday, 20 November 2013 10:31 PM 
> To: "Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager / 01678618243 /"
<simon.baroi at fiberathome.net> 
> Cc: "nog at bdnog.org" <nog at bdnog.org> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet
and call center security 
> 
> Dear Simon bhai, 
> 
> I am not asking for our network. I am asking from learning point of view.
ISPs like us use Allot, Packeteer, ET, MikroTik etc. I was wondering what
the carriers/transit providers might use to shape up QoS for IP traffic
(VoIP, IP Telephony, Video etc.). International calls pass through one or
more of these transit networks. If end to end QoS has to be ensured along
the path, transit providers will have to use such an equipment at IP level.
I feel, at Gigabit speeds, shaping up traffic without compromising
performance should be extremely difficult. I think, from transit providers'
point of view, IPLC is the best option for best QoS but I might be wrong.
Inputs from the experts in this list are welcome. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANIRUDDHA BARUA 
> Email: aniruddha.barua at colbd.com, cto at colbd.com 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:22 PM, "Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager /
01678618243 /" <simon.baroi at fiberathome.net> wrote: 
> 
> 

> 
> Dear Aniruddha Da, 
> 
> Can you please explain where you want to use this equipment. Are you want
to use it in your ISP to serve client and control them from a central point.

> 
> Please let us know a bit of details about it. 
> 
> - with regards 
> 
> SIMON 
> 
> FiBER at HOME. 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Aniruddha Barua
<aniruddha.barua at colbd.com> wrote: 
> 

> Hello everyone, 
> 
> Relating to this thread, I'd like to know if there is any equipment that
can shape up QoS traffic without affecting Non-QoS traffic at carrier
networks where bandwidth is in hundreds of Mbps to tens of Gbps. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> ANIRUDDHA BARUA 
> Email: aniruddha.barua at colbd.com, cto at colbd.com 
> 
> ---------- Original Message ----------- 
> From: Suvra Dev Kar <eng.suvra at gmail.com> 
> To: Palash Kanti Barua <palash at bol-online.com> 
> Cc: nog at bdnog.org 
> 
> Sent: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:11:31 +0600 
> Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet
and call center security 
> 
> > Dear Mr. Palash, 
> > 
> > Yes , you  are  right,  Provider  never  can  give  us  this  stats.
thats why maximum time  get  voice  break  issue.  SP can not ensure  QoS. 
> > you know any  good  vendor. 
> > 
> > Best Regards 
> > Suvro. 
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Palash Kanti Barua
<palash at bol-online.com> wrote: 
> > 

> > 
> > Dear Mr. Shuvro, 
> >   
> > You can ask your SP to ensure the following requirements for good voice
quality. 
> >   
> > 1)     Packet Loss should be no more than 1% between source and
destination   
> > 2)     One-way Latency (mouth-to-ear) should be no more than 150 ms 
> > 3)     Average one-way Jitter should be targeted under 30 ms 
> >   
> > If you use Ethernet connection and G.729 at 50 pps with 20 ms sampling
rate, you need at least 37 kbps bandwidth for each call. Please correct me
if I am wrong. 
> >   
> >   
> > Regards, 
> > Palash 
> > BOL 
> > 
> > From: Suvra Dev Kar [mailto:eng.suvra at gmail.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:51 PM 
> > To: Md Zahidul Haque 
> > Cc: Jahangir Hossain; Palash Kanti Barua; nog at bdnog.org 
> > 
> > Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public
internet and call center security 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > Dear  Team  Member, 
> > Thanks For your  Suggestion. I know voice  quality can not  improve
using  any firewall. firewall and  voice  quality is  both are different. i
saw if  network  any  firewall have  which  is  create  problem for  voice
termination.  but  firewall is  important to  secure the network. i want  to
know any  device which  can  support voice  termination. 
> > and  for  voice  quality issue i  am not interest to  get  IPLC, without
IPLC how  i can  get  good  voice  quality from  public  internet in
Bangladesh. any one have any  Band width which  can  defer voice traffic
and  data  traffic  when it is  going  through any  pipe link. coz voice
traffic  will be  priority in  public  internet, how  i can   do  this, or
who can give  this  type  of  service., 
> > 
> > 
> > and  thanks  to  roman bhai, that  for  voice termination workshop
agenda,. It is  very  important for  Bangladesh. 
> > 
> > FOr  routing we  are  using  Tier 1 provider. for  compression we  are
using  20 ms payload size for  g729 call. 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > Best Regards 
> > Suvro 
> > Helloworld Communication Ltd. 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Md Zahidul Haque <zahid at zhaque.net>
wrote: 
> > 
> > Palash vai is absolutely right. 
> > There are lots of other factor like BW, Compression mechanism, routing
mechanism etc. that can cause the poor quality of voice. 
> >   
> > Zahidul Haque 
> > HRC IGW 
> >   
> > From: nog-bounces at bdnog.org [mailto:nog-bounces at bdnog.org] On Behalf Of
Jahangir Hossain 
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:13 AM 
> > To: Palash Kanti Barua 
> > Cc: nog at bdnog.org 
> > Subject: Re: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public
internet and call center security 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 1+ palash bhai. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards  //  Jahangir Hossain 
> > 
> >                   Open Communication 
> >   
> > 
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Palash Kanti Barua
<palash at bol-online.com> wrote: 
> > Dear Mr. Suvro, 
> > 
> > Your voice traffic is passing from source to destination and vice versa 
> > using different carriers' network. So, it would be really difficult to 
> > ensure End-to-End voice quality over the Internet. No one will guarantee
for 
> > it. Still IPLC is the best solution for it though it is quite costly.
There 
> > is one alternative solution is to get international MPLS connectivity if
any 
> > SP can provide you the same in BD. As far as I know, there is no
firewall 
> > device or software which can improve the voice quality over the
internet. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Palash Kanti Barua 
> > BOL 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: nog-bounces at bdnog.org [mailto:nog-bounces at bdnog.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Suvra Dev Kar 
> > 
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:41 AM 
> > To: nog at bdnog.org 
> > Subject: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet
and 
> > call center security 
> > 
> > Dear BD  nog Team member, 
> > 
> > I  am suvro  from Hello world communications ltd.  we  are international

> > call center, we  are  using  voice  termination  through  public
internet, 
> > maximum time we  face  voice quality issue. Now  can  you tel me  any
one 
> > how  i  can get  good  voice  quality  from public  internet. we  are
not 
> > using  IPLC  coz  its costly. and tel me for  call center and  voice 
> > termination  which  firewall  device or  software i can  use. 
> > 
> > Best Regards 
> > Suvro Dev 
> > Hello world communications Ltd 
> > cell- +8801745724242 <tel:%2B8801745724242> . 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > nog mailing list 
> > nog at bdnog.org 
> > http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > nog mailing list 
> > nog at bdnog.org 
> > http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog 
> > 
> > 

> > -- 
> > 
> >   
> >   
> >   
> > 
> >       
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > nog mailing list 
> > nog at bdnog.org 
> > http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog 
> >  

> ------- End of Original Message ------- 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> nog mailing list 
> nog at bdnog.org 
> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog 
> 
> 

> 

> -- 
> Simon Sohel Baroi  |  Sr. Manager, Technology  |  PICO  |   ITC - IIG  | 
> Cell : +880-1678-618243 <tel:%2B880-1678-618243> , +880-181-7022207
<tel:%2B880-181-7022207>   |  Desk : +880-9666776677 Ext-1031
<tel:%2B880-9666776677%20Ext-1031>   |   
> Mail : simon.baroi at pico.net.bd <mailto:simon.baroi at fiberathome.net>   |
Skype : tx.fttx  | 
> 
> 
> 
> Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Respect. It's the little things that really can
make a difference. 
> 

> _______________________________________________ 
> nog mailing list 
> nog at bdnog.org 
> http://mailman.bdnog.org/mailman/listinfo/nog 
> 
> 

> 

> -- 
> Simon Sohel Baroi  |  Sr. Manager, Technology  |  PICO  |   ITC - IIG  | 
> Cell : +880-1678-618243, +880-181-7022207  |  Desk : +880-9666776677
Ext-1031  |   
> Mail : simon.baroi at pico.net.bd <mailto:simon.baroi at fiberathome.net>   |
Skype : tx.fttx  | 
> 
> 
> 
> Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. Respect. It's the little things that really can
make a difference. 
> 
------- End of Original Message ------- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.bdnog.org/pipermail/nog/attachments/20131121/ec6d2997/attachment-0001.html>