[codec] iLBC deployment statistics (Re: comparitive quality testing)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 27 April 2011 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC00E0709 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3iOurHSu6m2q for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450B8E06EC for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E399C39E119; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LKa4VkQ32rzO; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:36:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com []) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9304839E08B; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:36:08 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4DB7F1C5.5020908@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:36:53 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alan Duric <Alan.Duric@telio.no>
References: <BCB3F026FAC4C145A4A3330806FEFDA93BA8B64643@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <BANLkTimE6EzGY76Lm+-wtWtRTQgOjqhAEw@mail.gmail.com> <DB4DD197-97D2-492C-B896-A720347D3533@cisco.com> <BANLkTin53-nu9XzNi76KRV6npcWHUx4ptA@mail.gmail.com> <6261291B-0CB8-4719-910E-2ED7A7767D82@telio.no> <BANLkTik1DhJjUPYFtNL08gbSjqUB0KkLbQ@mail.gmail.com> <260B5AEE-577C-478B-9335-553C7E9ABD8F@telio.no>
In-Reply-To: <260B5AEE-577C-478B-9335-553C7E9ABD8F@telio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: [codec] iLBC deployment statistics (Re: comparitive quality testing)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:37:04 -0000

In order to keep the sanity of those of us who know something about 
codec deployment and other relevant topics, but less about comparative 
quality testing, could people please try to use a subject line that 
reflects the conversation's content?


On 04/26/11 23:14, Alan Duric wrote:
> Dear Roman,
> unfortunately, You are continuing with "say so" statements ...  Please read my postings before You reply and use facts and sources, rather then throwing FUD!
> Basically, You have expanded our initial conversation about iLBC deployments with 2 additional topics. I would like to focus on iLBC deployments and close on that subject on this thread. As per other newly introduced topics:
> 1) iLBC implementations and quality
> - my response to You is that it depends on how good work is done with the implementation. There is a number of very good and excellent implemenations (e.g by silicon&  gateway vendors and a number of ATA/IP Phone vendors), which run in a similar manner as implemented and "advertised" by GIPS at the time.
> 2) iLBC license
> - this new introduced topic I propose that we take as separate thread and discussion point, not confuse it with this thread. However, there is so far no charges pressed to anyone, years after it has been deployed. As per G.729A, I am also very glad that it has been released on royalty free basis to the community, which was also pretty much happened due to availability of iLBC.
> As per iLBC deployments, please find response inline:
>> This discussion is a bit unrelated to the overall discussion in the group, but I would still like to clarify some of my points.
>> As far as iLBC market penetration is concerned, what I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), none of the major US VoIP carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Level 3, XO, GlobalCorssing) offer iLBC termination to their customers. It is a choice of G.711 or G.729 A or B only.
> Yes, You are wrong! One of the listed carriers (which is present in Europe) is offering it. According to Sonus there is 8 of major US carriers using iLBC!
>> This is either caused by the luck of market demand, or by them using Sonus gateways which, as far as I know, do not support iLBC.
> Where do You get this info??? Sonus supports iLBC on all of their gateways since GSX 6.5.0R0 (to be more exact under a feature PCR 111). This has been available for a number of years - the best illustration is that this software version is now going out of life ... Source is Sonus and my company, we are Sonus customers since end of 2005 and running billions of minutes of traffic on Sonus.
>> Once again, as far as I know Skype is not using iLBC for anything. It is using Silk, G.711. G.729A, and ISAC.
> And again ... where do You get all this info from??? A number of wrong statements in only one sentence (BTW, SILK has phased out pretty much completely ISAC a long time ago).
>> As far as I know none of the cable VoIP operators in US use iLBC, it is all G.711.
> This is also not true, i trust that someone from CableLabs that follows the list will react on this (providing us with first hand info).
>> As far as hardware vendors are concerned, Cisco does support iLBC on its gateways a quite a few (but I do not think all) of its phones. Sonus only supports iLBC in its SBC, but not in gateways. Polycom, Snom, Aastra do not seem to support iLBC in their phones.
> As Cullen mentioned it is supported by Cisco, some Polycoms and also a whole range of Asian vendors that by now own quite a bit of the market around the world. I know that SNOM 870 also supports iLBC and I trust a number of their phones  ... Where do You get all this??
> As mentioned in my previous email, if You disagree please provide us with facts and sources, otherwise it is just "say so" and should be treated as such ...
> Best regards,
> Alan
> Alan Duric
> CTO and Cofounder
> Telio Holding ASA | Oslo exchange: TELIO
> twitter: 	alanduric
> linkedin.com/in/alanduric
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec