On Sun, 2009-01-04 at 22:33 -0800, Nitzan Kon wrote: > In other words, if a provider tests well from one point in > Europe - chances are they'll be OK from anywhere within the > EU. >
that may change, in amsterdam this year they are deploying residential gigabit fiber to most of the city. The plan is at least 50% early this year and expand to the rest later on or something. One problem they noticed is that many desktops cant sustain gigabit downloading, the disk is too slow, remember we are talking residential here. But if you see 500k people or so start using that you will see saturation and unless the peering is beefed up to compensate there will be issues. On the flipside, AMS-IX charges something like 2500 euro/month for a 10gbps link or something, so at least locally providers can increase peering, but getting that data outside of the local networks may require some retooling on the network providers side and that is likely to take some time. But then the same concept still applies, tests done here are not that applicable to people outside of this area. People in south africa, pakistan, japan, etc will have little use for them. So unless they are done everywhere they become somewhat meaningless. Additionally destination numbers are likely to have some effect in terms of quality, if I call a DE number it may go over a different provider than if I call a NL number. Basically it means that there is a lot of testing that has to be done, and the testing has to be blind to the providers to prevent any of them from rigging the test. Not saying that they will, but to remove the potential they cant know which ones are the test calls. for the rate search engine, to use a quality metric in its output, you would have to have servers all over the world, and they would have to call numbers all over the world or the test will be somewhat incomplete and not usable to anyone that isnt somewhere local to a test facility, placing calls to the same types of numbers that were tested. I do not see this level of testing as practical, especially for a volunteer effort given the scope that it would take to make it a global metric. Further latency isnt as big of a deal, its loss and jitter. If latency was a killer you would never be able to send a fax from north america to say india or something :) Jitter can be dealt with by way of a jitter buffer, providing its not too bad. Loss is harder to deal with, some codecs like ilbc have a higher MOS score with loss, at a higher cpu cost though, while others do not conceal loss at all or do it poorly, but are more cpu friendly. If you look at g.729 vs ilbc for example, g.729 falls much faster than ilbc in its MOS score with moderate loss. -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel pgp key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8AE5C721
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
