[bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet and call center security
aniruddha.barua at colbd.com
Thu Nov 21 01:36:09 BDT 2013
Dear Farid bhai,
Any agreement is made when all terms and conditions are agreed upon by the concerned parties. If the
terms and conditions cannot be agreed upon, then there can be no agreement no matter whoever says
whatever, let alone I. I only suggested it. I should have written it like this "Go for SLA with the
SP if applicable". Missed the "if applicable" part. I hope you understand now.:-)
Email: aniruddha.barua at colbd.com, cto at colbd.com
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Md. Faridul Alam | Aamra" <faridul.alam at aamra.com.bd>
To: "'Aniruddha Barua'" <aniruddha.barua at colbd.com>, "'Simon Sohel Baroi / IIG-ITC / Sr.Manager /
01678618243 /'" <simon.baroi at fiberathome.net>, "'Nurul Islam Roman'" <nurul at apnic.net>
Cc: <nog at bdnog.org>
Sent: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:34:19 +0600
Subject: RE: [bdNOG] Call Center Voice quality improve in public internet and call center security
> Dear Aniruddha Da,
> Im 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,
> 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
----------Earlier messages cut----------
More information about the nog