RE: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors

["Howard, W. Lee" <L.Howard () stanleyassociates com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Jared Mauch
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 7:06 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:32:33PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
>       What i've done is rate-limit TCP inbound to be around 
> 75-80% of the link speed to force things to back-off and 
> leave space for my UDP packet streams.
>
>       I think one of the major problems is that very few 
> people know how to, or are capable of sending larger g711 
> frames (at increased delay, but more data per packet) because 
> they can't set these more granular settings on their 
> systems.. this means you have a lot higher pps rates which I 
> think is the problem with the radio gear, it's just not 
> designed for high pps rates..

That's interesting. . . where's the intersection of the packet
size curve and the latency curve?  I mean, where would you set
it, and can you offset some of that with fragmentation and
intervleaving?

I'm outside of that "very few people," but I could imagine 
wanting dynamic control--one packet size (latency) for a certain 
calling plan (calls within the LAN, maybe even to anywhere on
my network if I control end-to-end QoS, and local calls) but
another for long distance.

>       - jared

Lee