Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

5920 (toll-free) / +1-678-954-0671 (direct) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ Sent from my BlackBerry.   Original Message   From: James Milko Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 11:32 To: Ryan Finnesey Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtu

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

I've run the Sonus SWe in a lab environment and it works quite well. Everything is exactly the same as the SBC5/7xxx platform minus the hardware specific pieces (like reboot commands). It does not have transcoding ability, however, and we have a requirement to do a lot of that with our SBCs. So

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Since this thread pretty much immediately devolved into complaining about the way marketing has worked for the last 100 years. Does anyone have any actual experience? I'm pretty interested in anyone who has tried to run a Sonus SWe in AWS at the moment. If you tried transcoding I'm curious on

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:45 PM > To: voiceops@voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC > > So, it's news to the Bellhead world that most "SBCs" run on commodity pizza > boxes & OSs that are branded by the vendor and resold at large markups, and >

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

You didn't just seriously say that? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 7, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Alex Balashov wrote: > > Indeed. As usual, it's very seldom about whether words arranged in a certain > order result in useful meaning. Marketing into the Bellhead CxO suite is a

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Frafos have been distributing their SBC as a downloadable VM image since at least 2013. I guess that makes them industry Visionaries and Unified Communications Thought Leaders since other folks are just coming to this realisation now. But they clearly lack the insight to see that a moderately

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

://www.csrpswitch.com/ Sent from my BlackBerry.   Original Message   From: Carlos Alvarez Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:03 To: voiceops Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

On 04/07/2016 10:56 AM, Matthew Crocker wrote: > > NFV is all about containers and micro services. It is unix all over > again but in the cloud. Small containerized functions that do a > specific task. Spun up in the cloud and linked together by an > orchestration overlay. Personally I

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

erry. > *From: *Pete Eisengrein > *Sent: *Thursday, April 7, 2016 08:26 > *To: *Alex Balashov > *Cc: *voiceops@voiceops.org > *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC > > If it requires a bunch of configuration, I agree it is just V. But if > there's an orchestration layer that in

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

> > Sent from my BlackBerry. > From: Pete Eisengrein > Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 08:26 > To: Alex Balashov > Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org > Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC > > If it requires a bunch of configuration, I agree it is just V. But if there's &g

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Indeed. As usual, it's very seldom about whether words arranged in a certain order result in useful meaning. Marketing into the Bellhead CxO suite is a kind of meme laundering operation: "what can of horseshit can we seed into golf course and country club conversations?" Apparently NFV‎ is the

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

78-954-0671 (direct) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/ Sent from my BlackBerry. From: Pete Eisengrein Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 08:26 To: Alex Balashov Cc: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC If it requires a bunch of configuration, I

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

So, future-proof purchasing because the licence is for the essential content of the software rather than a superficially branded commodity server = NFV? That just sounds like V.  There's not a single thing SBCs do that can be described as a network function in need of software generalisation.

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

kBerry.From: Pete EisengreinSent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 07:26Cc: voiceops@voiceops.orgSubject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC> my point was that they, of all

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

ckBerry. > *From: *Pete Eisengrein > *Sent: *Thursday, April 7, 2016 07:26 > *Cc: *voiceops@voiceops.org > *Subject: *Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC > > > my point was that they, of all > > > things, are a poor standard > > > bearer for the NFV marketing- >

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

.From: Pete EisengreinSent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 07:26Cc: voiceops@voiceops.orgSubject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC> my point was that they, of all > things, are a poor standard > bearer for the NFV marketing- > gasm.   With centralized licensing and

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

--- From: VoiceOps [mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org] On Behalf Of Alex Balashov Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 6:45 PM To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC So, it's news to the Bellhead world that most "SBCs" run on commodity pizza boxes & OSs that

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

It is unfortunately the element in the network with the shortest service lifecycle so the most likely to come under scrutiny for replacement. For ex my original core metaswitch I recently phased out survived 3 generations of SBC's. Each generation came at not insignificant hardware cost.

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

On 04/06/2016 10:54 PM, Ryan Delgrosso wrote: an SBC ... is a demarcation and control point between network segments where you can inject interworking and business logic. Absolutely, at >= Layer 5. If it's news to anyone here that you can virtualise applications, they've got some catching

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

I'm not sure I share your narrow view of what an SBC is and the role it plays in modern network architecture. There is absolutely a subset of uses for an SBC that fit perfectly into the box you have outlined but in the broader sense it is a demarcation and control point between network

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Me too +1 on Sansay. Great team & product. El abr. 6, 2016 9:17 PM, "Peter E" escribió: > Agree regarding NFV. It's a pretty big topic. > > Oracle (Acme) is playing catch-up but also has a solution now. Haven't > played with it (or Somus, Sansay) yet so I can't render an

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Agree regarding NFV. It's a pretty big topic. Oracle (Acme) is playing catch-up but also has a solution now. Haven't played with it (or Somus, Sansay) yet so I can't render an opinion. On Apr 6, 2016, at 21:58, Ryan Delgrosso wrote: They have more than a buzzword for

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

That's just it. SBCs are a terrible example of "NFV" because SBCs do not actually perform a "network function" of the sort that begs to be decoupled and abstracted in the way that NFV and SDN envisions, like software-defined switches and routers. The idea that the SBC is a kind of "voice

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

They have more than a buzzword for this, its a whole movement. Realistically NFV encompasses more than just raw virtualization its also elastic capacity and the orchestration layer to manage it. The only problem is most vendors have only accomplished the virtualization part and are still

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC So, it's news to the Bellhead world that most "SBCs" run on commodity pizza boxes & OSs that are branded by the vendor and resold at large markups, and that the software can be separated from the hardware and executed o

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

+1 on Sansay. Great team & product. On Wednesday, April 6, 2016, Calvin Ellison wrote: > I suggest contacting Sansay and asking what's new; I think they may be > onto this already. > > >> NFV is unquestionably the way forward. >> >>

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

I suggest contacting Sansay and asking what's new; I think they may be onto this already. > NFV is unquestionably the way forward. > > ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops

Re: [VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

So far the only things keeping me from abandoning hardware SBC's are crypto and transcoding. NFV is unquestionably the way forward. On 4/6/2016 6:11 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: Has any more worked with products similar to

[VoiceOps] Virtualized SBC

Has any more worked with products similar to http://www.sonus.net/products/session-border-controllers/virtualized-sbc-swe What has your experience been? Cheers Ryan ___ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps@voiceops.org