SIP trunking providers

Mon Jul 20 20:57:52 UTC 2015

FWIW, I don’t know where their  root nodes are or where their proxies are
located, but I’ve had excellent service from CallCentric for several years.

They’ve just plain worked everywhere I’ve tried in first-world countries and
generally fairly well even in places that were network challenged like Rwanda
~5 years ago, Haiti ~3 years ago, Suriname, Morocco ~6 years ago, etc.

They’ve even worked pretty well from most of the hotel WiFi networks where
I have attempted to use them.

I given them $1.95 per month and something around a penny per minute
on the rare occasion when I use the service. This gets me a DID number,
as well as outgoing service with customized caller-ID mapping. Admittedly
this is for a single-line rather than SIP trunking, but I believe they also offer
trunking services.

Owen

> On Jul 20, 2015, at 08:21 , Rafael Possamai <rafael at gav.ufsc.br> wrote:
> 
> When I originally posted the thread, I had asked Chicago due to physical
> proximity, and my assumption being the lesser the number of hops, the lower
> the probability of running into issues (latency, jitter and congestion). On
> the other hand, one of my sandboxes are out of Las Vegas and I haven't had
> any issues yet, but the number of test calls I've ran aren't enough to say
> with confidence that distance and hops don't matter (indirect ways of
> measuring latency, etc).
> 
> Another thing is, having your packets stay in Chicago and in Chicago only
> is a nice thing, the efficiency of your overall system would be higher for
> what it's worth, but as an example, the 2nd hop this e-mail is taking to
> get delivered to Nanog is about 100 miles, who knows about the other ones.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> End to end delay is not the most limiting factor.  Jitter is the issue and
>> packet drops are the other issue that matters (more importantly the
>> distribution of drops).  I think the best reason to select the local
>> provider over the distant one is that the sooner he gets off the IP network
>> the less impairments he will run into.  The TDM network as antiquated as it
>> is, is less susceptible to congestion and call impairments than an IP
>> backbone network is.  I can tell you from running a bunch of International
>> VOIP networks that they are just not as reliable as TDM.  The average
>> internet connection just does not meet the reliability standards that the
>> TDM voice network has achieved.  IP networks are affected by congestion and
>> routing issues whereas the TDM network seldom has these type of problems.
>> An outage on a TDM circuit rarely affects other TDM circuits so they see a
>> lot less higher level outages.  I can understand why he does not want to
>> haul his voice cross country over IP when he is exiting locally most of the
>> time.
>> 
>> Yes, I understand that the carrier might very well be hauling that traffic
>> via IP even after he gets to his gateway point but at that point it becomes
>> their problem to deal with.
>> 
>> Steven Naslund
>> Chicago IL
>> 
>> 
>>> If you’re going to the PSTN, who gives a shit where you do the
>> interconnect as long as its within 100ms.
>>> 
>>> If most of your calls are VOIP<->VOIP within Chicago, then it makes some
>> sense to set up a box and just send the external calls out to the trunking
>> provider where >you no longer really care where they are.
>>> 
>>> Absent significant network  suckage, there’s no place in the contiguous
>> US that isn’t within 100 ms of any other place in the contiguous US these
>> days.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>> 
>> 