[oclug] POTS -> SIP providers in Canada?

[Brad Barnett]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:56:22 -0700
Ross Jordan <rjordan at numb.ca> wrote:

> It would seem Brad Barnett, on Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 04:03:00PM -0400,
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:27:54 -0700
> > Ross Jordan <rjordan at numb.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > > On a side note, it is also quite annoying that you are unable, at
> > > > this point in time, to order an unlocked SIP+firewall+router box,
> > > > such as the Linksys WRT54GP2.  Virtually every big name seems to
> > > > have a contract with a VOIP provider.. or only provide their
> > > > hardware through voip providers.  I was forced to order 12 VOIP
> > > > firewall/routers from the US, from a company that providers you
> > > > with a one month, $1.99 US voip account.
> > > > 
> > > > In other words, I paid a $1.99 tax to get those routers.
> > > 
> > > You can easily get a Sipura SIP adapter that is unlocked. I bought
> > > a Sipura SPA-2000 off ebay for $60 a couple months ago, and it has
> > > worked great (actually, I understand that several of the Linksys SIP
> > > adapters are using the Sipura IP internally). If you insist on a
> > > Linksys adapter, I've seen the unlocked versions (-NA) selling on
> > > ebay frequently
> > 
> > I'm wasn't after a SIP adapter, though.  
> 
> Well, there are a fair number of non Linksys vendors offerring
> a full router/firewall/adapter unlocked. 
> http://www.voipsupply.com/index.php?cPath=94_143
> http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-VOIP+Routers

There were none four months ago.  Zero.  Only D-Link and LinkSys
were really in the market back then, at a sub $150 CDN mark.

Voip-info.org had a much shorter list, then. ;)

I spent over 10 _hours_ double checking, verifying, you name it.  Much
more than I would have chosen to spend on the issue.  It is very, very
good to see that things have changed in a few short months.

After all, it was very sickening to have to pay extra money, because both
d-link and linksys where in bed with the devil.

> 
> I do agree that Linksys is being most annoying by not selling their
> unlocked (-NA) models to individuals.
>  

As well as D-link, at least at the time. :/


> > I was after an entire SIP+firewall+router box, so that SIP traffic has
> > priority.  It is the _only_ reasonable way to assure quality of
> > service, for a home office, other than severely restricting bandwidth.
> >  You want
> > that SIP traffic to have priority right at your firewall/router/NAT
> > box.
> 
> You could roll your own firewall, in front of the sip adapter, and
> provide QoS. 

Not really, you can't.  NAT with SIP is a royal pain in the rear end. 
Aside from that, a normal PC eats up extra power and cost far more than
one of these little linksys boxes.

Manpower is another consideration as well.

By doing what you're suggesting, the cost skyrockets to several hundreds
of dollars per installation, from a mere $120 or $130 per.  What a company
needs is a complete, finished, drop and go solution here.

Playing around with old pcs.. hacking things to work as you want.. it's
too expensive to handle things in that fashion.  A $50 used PC may seem
like a great deal.. but when include the manpower to get that working... 

Suddenly it's a horrible idea.


> Frankly, I haven't bothered, and my voip calls very rarely
> have any quality issues (and when they do, its typically the ISP's
> fault). Also, I'm rather sceptical of the QoS offerrings in typical
> consumer routers -- but I haven't played with them too much. Have you
> noticed a marked improvement with QoS?
> 

I'm referring to quality of service, not quality of service. ;)  I
probably should use another term.  What I mean is, I'm not referring to
marking packets, but I _am_ referring to making sure that SIP traffic gets
out the door first.

This is what these nice little routers do, that a firewall can't do, if
you run anything at all on that firewall.