Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

The metaswitch way is that it will do it automatically for you if it thinks you're behind a NAT. So if you force nat, it will do the fast registration automatically. It's one line of config on the sip adjacency for the MaxUC application. > On Jun 10, 2021, at 5:33 PM, Matthew Crocker wrote: >

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

The acme/oracle way of doing Hosted NAT Traversal is to set the expire time down to 30 seconds and have the phones REGISTER every 30 seconds. The SBC eats the registration so it doesn’t overload the switch. If the CGN NAT drops the entry it gets recreated with the new registration in 30

[VoiceOps] Multiple Tandems Per LATA

When your service area is taken care of by one tandem in the LATA, do you connect to the other tandems in your LATA? Currently I just send anything that's not on my single tandem (or my direct connections) to my interLATA termination. How common is that? It's pricey to build out to the other

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Precisely. And those "NAT table entries" eventually time out. On CG-NAT they often time out aggressively; <60 seconds. Hence sending OPTIONS over SIP over UDP regularly keeps the NAT table entries refreshed and active and therefore the UDP 'connection' open. I've come across firewalls with 30

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Peter, > Where did your understanding come from? My info could now be called 'Myth' - I've been out of the retail business for about 9 years. For cellular in US, we had to keep track of originating party jurisdiction, terminating party jurisdiction, and any O/T cells involved. Then the tax

[VoiceOps] LERG Access

Those of you that have LERG access, what do you have? I've ran this network for a few years without it. I'm assuming I'm missing something I should have. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

I had thought it was, "here's the safe harbor. If you want to substitute your own traffic study go ahead. We won't define how it is calculated, just don't screw it up, or you'll get our boot in your backside." I figured it was as macro or micro as you wanted it to be and could support.

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Mark, We are not using MetaSwitch. What I am saying is because we ran into this issue in the past the only thing we found to get around it was to send OPTIONS every 60 seconds. In the past we have used TCP and we actually had a lot more problems with TCP then UDP (I never dug too much into it to

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

On 6/10/21 4:19 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: $3.19 is right around 24% of 33.4% of $39.95. Maybe Comcast's traffic studies show that 24% of phone traffic is interstate, so that's the amount that gets the USF charge? It had been my impression that the FCC rather particularly insisted on a small

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Not to muddy the waters here with needless pedantry, but: While UDP may be "connectionless", the only way UDP, and in particular, symmetric SIP signalling, can work through NAT is if a stateful firewall + NAT gateway has some awareness (that is, state) of UDP "flows", or groups of packets

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

$3.19 is right around 24% of 33.4% of $39.95. Maybe Comcast's traffic studies show that 24% of phone traffic is interstate, so that's the amount that gets the USF charge? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Yes, I think the softphone client does use TCP. -Original Message- From: Peter Beckman Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 4:07 PM To: Mark Wiles Cc: Dovid Bender ; voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data u SIP here is UDP, no?

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

A comcast business package looks like this right now for a small biz: Internet - 69.95 Voice line - 39.95 Voice equipment fee - 18.45 (that is hilarious to convert their coax signal to fxs) FUSF - 3.19 Regulatory cost recovery - 1.36 Voice network investment - 3.00 (wtf) Directory listing mgmt

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

u SIP here is UDP, no? There's no connection to close for UDP. The source port for UDP doesn't matter. It's not part of the whole conversation, unless your switch cares that all communications continue to come from the source port. It's connectionless. TCP 5060 isn't even listening on

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Perimeta's fast register causes it to refresh faster than once a minute. It doesn't log this in the SAS, but there's a way to verify at the perimeta CLI it's occurring. You might want to have your SE verify that the subscriber is being detected properly as NAT when on the verizon towers, and

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Ed -- I'd love to see more data on this. Where did your understanding come from? I looked at my cellular bill last night, and on 4 lines, the "Fed Universal Service Charge" was a total of $1.88 on a total bill of about $180 (about $160 of it was just the monthly fee for 4 plans). Does anyone

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Since I’m as dumb as a bag of hammers when it comes to cellular data… what do you think the NAT timeout might standardly be, before the pin-hole goes away? Strange we’ve not run into this before. From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 11:12 AM To:

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

49 seconds... how trusting! ;-) We use 25. Pete (it's true, but said tongue-in-cheek as I'm sure you have your data to show where the bulk of NATs expire) > On 11/06/2021, at 12:46 AM, Dovid Bender wrote: > > (we send SIP OPTIONS every 49 seconds) to ensure that the session > stays

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Paul, that was my thought on the Perimeta. So far, we’ve only had two calls that this issue occurred on… but honestly, not sure how many have 30+ minutes calls on their softphone. I just wonder if this was kind of a one-off issue with a specific Verizon cell? From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Paul

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

What service features of the service are subject to USF? is it only charged on retail land-line replacement or at multiple levels as a value-add? My understanding is that cellular services do not pay USF ( but, when we had a cell company several years ago, all taxes were outsourced..)

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

That, and, while I am not at all an expert on what can and can't be recovered from customers, it was my impression that not 100% of USF can be passed on. On 6/10/21 1:03 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote: Except that some of us specifically sell "bottom line" pricing that is not variable and not

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Except that some of us specifically sell "bottom line" pricing that is not variable and not padded with 20 lines of fees and taxes. Because our ILEC is known for quoting $100 and billing $130-150 actual price. On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:38 AM Paul Timmins wrote: > On 6/10/21 6:23 AM, Alex

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

I tell my customers to complain to their congress critter if they don’t like the 33% tax on the services. It’s for the children after all…. From: VoiceOps on behalf of Paul Timmins Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:38 PM To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

On 6/10/21 6:23 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: Yeah, observing it as an outsider who is not a service provider, I'm a little shocked to say the least. It's hard to understand where that kind of money is supposed to come from with the margins in this business. -- Alex Passthru fees to the end

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

While OT for this list, this may be interesting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2021/05/12/four-reasons-to-stop-panicking-over-inflation/ Michael Graves

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

I’m not sure there’s a clear path of reasoning from “stimulus-driven price inflation” to “increased regulatory taxes”. — Sent from mobile, with due apologies for brevity and errors. > On Jun 10, 2021, at 11:31 AM, Kili Land wrote: > >  > Everything is > this year. Pretty much can expect it

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

On 6/10/21 12:15 AM, Peter Beckman wrote: Um. Wow. This is crazy. Why is it 33.4%??? 2 years ago it was 18.8%. This is DOUBLE! Will it stop increasing? Go back down? Are we doomed? Yeah, observing it as an outsider who is not a service provider, I'm a little shocked to say the least. It's

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Everything is > this year. Pretty much can expect it to keep climbing. You can’t print more money in one year than in the entire history of your country and not have an economic impact. It’s not going back down. That’s a given. ~K From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday,

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Oversight is EXPENSIVE. Allen From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 11:24 AM To: Peter Beckman Cc: VoiceOps Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021 *** EXTERNAL E-MAIL SECURITY ALERT *** Please use caution before (1.) Replying to the

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Slush. Fund. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Peter Beckman" To: "VoiceOps" Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:15:16 PM Subject: [VoiceOps] USF is

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

It is when we pay to build far more capacity than the school can conceivably use to a network that can't be repurposed for other things, especially when it overbuilds existing networks (ie: The school can't even make money leasing back excess capacity, because nobody needs the extra glass on

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

The perimeta should auto-detect the NAT and start a "fast register" in their parlance. You might want to look into this and possibly force nat on your MaXUC instead of using nat autodetect, and make sure fast register is configured. It will handle keeping the signaling portion open for you.

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Is that a bad thing? -Original Message- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:07 AM To: Adam Moffett; VoiceOps Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021 It feels like every year, I see some elementary school

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

Or just politics and payoffs? Ironically, we are seeing far more inexpensive options coming up, such as Starlink, yet also growing the taxes to serve them? Has any organization/tax been removed when it was no longer needed: Eg: Spanish-American war and telecom tax... On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

It feels like every year, I see some elementary school building a 100gb coherent 288 strand dark fiber ring on e-rate funds. Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit, but in the case of a local district, only by a bit (they were doing 40gb, for a district). A far cry from when we just subsidized some

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

I don't have any inside info on that, but the purpose of USF is to subsidize service in high cost areas (usually rural). So either there are more services needing subsidies or fewer services paying in or some combination of both. Q2 2021 – 33.4% Q1 2021 – 31.8% Q4 2020 – 27.1% Q3 2020 – 26.5%

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

Hi Dovid, So just thinking about this… granted, there wasn’t SIP traffic for “X” amount of time… but there would have been RTP… so wouldn’t that have been seen as traffic? Hmmm… but as soon as I typed that, SIP traffic’s on one port… RTP traffic’s on another port… so even with the RTP flowing

Re: [VoiceOps] USF is 33.4% for 2Q2021

I don't want to make this political but so long as we accept it and pay it, it wont go down. If more people started asking questions and demanded to understand why it kept going up then maybe there would be accountability. On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:21 AM Peter Beckman wrote: > Um. Wow. This is

Re: [VoiceOps] "Timeout" on VoIP call traversing Verizon data

If I had to guess Verizon is using CGNAT and since there is no traffic for X amount of time the NAT hole for the SIP traffic is closed. When you send a re-invite at the 30 minute mark that session as far as Verizon's CGNAT devices are concerned have been closed a long time ago. You would need to