Actually that should br your round-trip-time. One way latency would be half that.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bartosz Jozwiak Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:56 AM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Extending E1's over a Satellite link We have a satellite line and using IAX. Everything work fine. Latency about 620ms - 680ms Greetings. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arinze Izukanne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Extending E1's over a Satellite link > Well Julio, in countries where there are no reliable > regional communication backbones with lower return > times, satellites are used and in most cases the > quality is outstanding for a good implementation even > for a double hop. > > I could give you a call over a satellite link, G729 > and latency of up to 650ms. > > > Best regards > > Arinze Izukanne > > > --- Julio Arruda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Tim McKee wrote: > > > Guys: > > > > > > I routinely run multiple phones over our satellite > > system (I'm the VP of > > > Network Services at SDN Global, a satellite > > bandwidth provider located in > > > Charlotte NC, US). > > > > > > Just last week I went to West Palm Beach, FL US > > and turned up a 10 phone > > > emergency call center, complete with ACD queues > > for an insurance company. > > > We were able to run all ten phones (Cisco 7960Gs, > > SIP) on G.729 codecs back > > > to my * server in Charlotte NC US. No special > > settings were required on * > > > or the phones. > > > > > > The satellite system *must* support *REAL* QoS and > > must have jitter < > > > ~100ms. Traditional satellite systems have *lots* > > more jitter than that. > > > The actual latency _doesn't matter_ as long as the > > jitter is steady. We are > > > even doing 'double-hop' phone calls successfully, > > where the latency is > > > double the normal latency. > > > > > > Anyone that wants more detailed info contact me > > off-list. > > > > Out of sheer curisity, the delay itself doesn't make > > the conversation > > 'bad' (meaning, walkie-talkie/roger-and-over-like ?) > > The codec itself should introduce some dozens of ms, > > but the satellite, > > is not at least 300ms one way or something like that > > ? adding the > > codecs, and the jitter buffers and etc..I wonder how > > good/bad is it ? > > _______________________________________________ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > > > > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
