Rossamino
asked on
What sort of connection is necessary for VoIP to work?
What sort of connection is necessary for VoIP to work? Currently we've got an SDSL 768/768 supporting 3 incoming and 1 outgoing lines coming into a SwitchVOX (Asterisk) PBX. There are also four copper lines moving through the same box/network. The copper lines are perfect incoming and outgoing. I'm told the VoIP messages deposited on the PBX have no problems.
There does exist a problem somewhere between the VoIP phones and wherever the phone call is connected. I've run Ping Plotter from here to the address given to me by JunctionNetworks and it doesn't look good. I'm wondering if the problem might be that we're Nat'ed at least three times. I know this because some of the IP's off the tracert are 192.168.0.10 (our internal IP address) then 74.0.xxx.xxx (the inside interface of the Covad-supplied router), 172.31.255.253 (further down the chain), 192.168.5.65 (even further down the chain.) Many of the hops are identified by nycmny2wcx2-pos14-1.wcg.ne
So I'm wondering what's the least expensive internet connection that's going to consistently give us acceptable phone service. I'd just go get a T-1 if cost was no object, but it is. We're currently spending $170/month for what we've got and it's making me very sad :( Any other solution suggestions are welcome.
There does exist a problem somewhere between the VoIP phones and wherever the phone call is connected. I've run Ping Plotter from here to the address given to me by JunctionNetworks and it doesn't look good. I'm wondering if the problem might be that we're Nat'ed at least three times. I know this because some of the IP's off the tracert are 192.168.0.10 (our internal IP address) then 74.0.xxx.xxx (the inside interface of the Covad-supplied router), 172.31.255.253 (further down the chain), 192.168.5.65 (even further down the chain.) Many of the hops are identified by nycmny2wcx2-pos14-1.wcg.ne
So I'm wondering what's the least expensive internet connection that's going to consistently give us acceptable phone service. I'd just go get a T-1 if cost was no object, but it is. We're currently spending $170/month for what we've got and it's making me very sad :( Any other solution suggestions are welcome.
ASKER
WinMTR statistics
Loss
Host % Sent Recv Best Avrg Wrst Last
192.168.0.10 0 1101 1101 0 41 125 16
h-74-0-63-89.chcgilgm.cova
172.31.255.253 2 1101 1083 0 59 1094 93
192.168.5.65 1 1101 1090 0 64 984 94
chc2il1lrs1-gige2-2.wcg.ne
brvwil1wcx2-pos6-3.wcg.net
chcgil9lch1-pos4-1-oc48.wc
aer1-ge-4-1.chicagoequinix
bpr2-ae2.ChicagoEquinix.sa
dcr2-so-6-3-0.Chicago.savv
dcr2-so-2-0-0.Denver.savvi
dcr2-so-2-0-0.Denver.savvi
dcr1-as0-0.Denver.savvis.n
bpr3-so-0-0-0.SeattleSwitc
bpr3-so-0-0-0.SeattleSwitc
border5.ge5-1-bbnet1.sef.p
66.150.161.56 2 1100 1082 62 129 875 266
WinMTR 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir ( stanimir@cr.nivis.com )
I'm hoping that I shouldn't simply sum the Loss % column, but I'm thinking that, "Yes, we're losing 30% of our conversations." Is that correct? The voice quality is poor enough for that to be believable particularly hop 9 which is 8% all by its lonesome. Furthermore, it looks like the destination is somewhere in Washington state. Perhaps there's another service provider somewhere closer? Anyone know of an outfit in Chicago.
Loss
Host % Sent Recv Best Avrg Wrst Last
192.168.0.10 0 1101 1101 0 41 125 16
h-74-0-63-89.chcgilgm.cova
172.31.255.253 2 1101 1083 0 59 1094 93
192.168.5.65 1 1101 1090 0 64 984 94
chc2il1lrs1-gige2-2.wcg.ne
brvwil1wcx2-pos6-3.wcg.net
chcgil9lch1-pos4-1-oc48.wc
aer1-ge-4-1.chicagoequinix
bpr2-ae2.ChicagoEquinix.sa
dcr2-so-6-3-0.Chicago.savv
dcr2-so-2-0-0.Denver.savvi
dcr2-so-2-0-0.Denver.savvi
dcr1-as0-0.Denver.savvis.n
bpr3-so-0-0-0.SeattleSwitc
bpr3-so-0-0-0.SeattleSwitc
border5.ge5-1-bbnet1.sef.p
66.150.161.56 2 1100 1082 62 129 875 266
WinMTR 0.8. Copyleft @2000-2002 Vasile Laurentiu Stanimir ( stanimir@cr.nivis.com )
I'm hoping that I shouldn't simply sum the Loss % column, but I'm thinking that, "Yes, we're losing 30% of our conversations." Is that correct? The voice quality is poor enough for that to be believable particularly hop 9 which is 8% all by its lonesome. Furthermore, it looks like the destination is somewhere in Washington state. Perhaps there's another service provider somewhere closer? Anyone know of an outfit in Chicago.
ASKER
This page simply won't let me post formatted data :(
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
The fact that your ISP is using internal addressing for its internal network wont affect anything. It will just cause some routers to be unpingable remotely from other places on the internet but they do this to conserve IP addresses.
Get a copy of winmtr (http://winmtr.sourceforge.net/) which is windows based or you can use the 'mtr' which comes with most versions of linux. Run that against your destination with a large number of pings (I suggest 1000) and post the results.
Maybe there is a faulty router somewhere causing the dropped packets.
With SDSL you do get a contention ratio so a number of people share the available bandwidth meaning that you are not guaranteed to get full bandwidth. This is one reason why SDSL is cheaper than T1 for example. You can often buy a SDSL with a lower contention ratio.
However in your case you are only using 240kbps with your 3 lines so you should always be able to get that bandwidth. The winmtr/mtr results should help diagnose the problem.