RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding
"Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net> Wed, 08 March 2006 13:05 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGyLv-0006Mv-0k; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:05:19 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGyLt-0006Mq-NV for sipping@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:05:17 -0500
Received: from cdx28.winwebhosting.com ([70.85.255.82]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGyLt-0000Cl-5h for sipping@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:05:17 -0500
Received: from neustargw.va.neustar.com ([209.173.53.233] helo=BROSENLT41XP) by cdx28.winwebhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FGyLn-0000Uw-U5; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:05:12 -0600
From: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
To: "'Roy, Radhika R.'" <RADHIKA.R.ROY@saic.com>, sipping@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:05:04 -0500
Message-ID: <168501c642b0$ec354830$640fa8c0@cis.neustar.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
Thread-Index: AcZCGp0qZmJKO7d3RTmALiVw5av/XwAlIO8g
In-Reply-To: <A879F72922C16E4F80EA2F34EBF2AAA31D9D94@0591-ITS-EXMP02.us.saic.com>
X-PopBeforeSMTPSenders: br@brianrosen.net,brosen
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cdx28.winwebhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - brianrosen.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: be922d419820e291bde1362184dc32fd
Cc:
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: br@brianrosen.net
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
You know, I've always thought the default codec for VoIP should be a wideband codec, with G.711 provided for backwards compatibility only. If VoIP always implied better-than-"toll-quality", it would mean something different than it does now. We showed this in user trials. Skype showed how true this is in the wild. Vendors never agreed; they were all looking to duplicate black phones. Customers don't know enough to ask; it only rarely shows up on wish lists and almost never on requirements documents. They don't know what they are missing and how little it costs to substantially improve user experience. We found really odd problems trying to do it. The one that really hurt was if you want a handset that was wideband AND met disability requirements for hearing aid compatibility, there were no choices; you had to literally build your own handset, with hard-to-find components. I don't think vendor's opinion has changed, and I don't think you can mandate any standard except G.711. I don't think I've seen a wired SIP phone that didn't do G.711. Not really sure if there has been a wireless one offered. Brian ________________________________________ From: Roy, Radhika R. [mailto:RADHIKA.R.ROY@saic.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:08 PM To: sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Hi, Kang, Henry, and all: It is the time to select “DEFAULT” codec by the IETF for the Internet. SIPPING/SIP WG needs to mandate this. (In olden days, ITU-T defined their default G.711 audio codec for the IP Network mandating PSTN network interoperability [ridiculous!!]. Then IMTC did something mandating a lower-speed codec.) Some proposals are coming from your side. Can we get the consensus to mandate these requirements for the Internet to the benefit of the users? Best regards, Radhika ________________________________________ From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henry Sinnreich Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:24 AM To: Kang Tae-Gyu; Albrecht.Schwarz@alcatel.de Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang, It seems there are several issues in this debate (in increasing order of disruption ☺ ): 1. Are there too many codecs around? If yes, what is the minimum number of codecs that should be supported? What is the recommended default codec? (As mentioned, my pick is iLBC as the default and SPEEX for wideband). 2. Can transcoding between domains be avoided or at least minimized? (Hint: Avoided at all cost). 3. Why are intermediate VoIP domains necessary at all, when e2e services like Skype have proven to be successful and having the best audio quality (apart from the e2e QoS debate)? Editorial: Intermediate VoIP domains are IMHO a revenue objective, but have no technical justification on the e2e Internet and no amount of politics can prevail in the long term over sound technology. Thanks, Henry ________________________________________ From: Kang Tae-Gyu [mailto:tgkang@etri.re.kr] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1:30 AM To: Henry Sinnreich; Albrecht.Schwarz@alcatel.de Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Hi, Henry If industry has a specific "internet codec", SIP/SDP will be more simple signaling protocol. But, I believe that SIP/SDP tries to support any codec and any media. I think that the making default codec is another issue. Thanks, Kang -------------------------------------------------------- The numerous wireline legacy ITU-T G.7xx codecs and other countless codecs deployed for mobile phones are a disgrace IMHO. The industry would be better off adopting "Internet codecs": The iLBC RFC 3951 and RFC 3952 as the default codec and SPEEX for variable rate wideband (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-speex- 00.txt). Thanks, Henry -----Original Message----- From: Albrecht.Schwarz@alcatel.de [mailto:Albrecht.Schwarz@alcatel.de] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:29 AM To: Kang Tae-Gyu Cc: sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Hi Kang, just a comment to the transcoding scenario between two different WB codecs (WB1<->WB2). Transcoding as such should be avoided because it is inherently decreasing the audio/speech quality ("adds e.g., delay impairments and Ie, equipment impairment factors") and an "expensive" network function. There must be therefore an agreed justifaction, particularly for WB1<->WB2 transcoding scenarios! Transcoding between two different NB codecs (NB1<->NB2) is often inevitable. The difference with WB codecs is that terminals "should support a fallback mode to a NB codec" in my opinion. There are two possibilities: NB mode is part of the WB codec modes of operation (e.g., G.729EV with G.729A as NB mode), or separate NB codec (e.g., terminal concept according G.725). The inconsistent "WB1<->WB2" E2E scenario might then lead to fallbacks to (default) NB codecs. In case of a then "NB1<->NB2" inconsistency to NB transcoding in the network. Comments? Albrecht "Kang Tae-Gyu" <tgkang@etri.re. To: <sipping@ietf.org> kr> cc: xupeili@huawei.com, rohan@ekabal.com, Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com, dean.willis@softarmor.com 21.02.2006 03:12 Subject: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Please respond to Kang Tae-Gyu Hello, I would like to discuss about the use case of multi-transcoding. First of all, I am sorry for that I could not answer about its use case when I received the question from the floor, IETF 64 Vancouver meeting, because of poor English. Also, thank you for the minutes(chairmen and note takers). There are three kinds of use cases of multi-transcoding. - one or two more heterogeneous networks - one or two more ITSPs - one or two more wideband speech codecs There are one or two more heterogeneous networks: enterprise networks using IP-PBX, ITSP(Internet Telephony Service Provider), IMS in 3GPP2, PacketCable, and Wibro. They will not use a common codec. So, they need multi transcoding such as; - use case 1: A(a) - IP PBX T1(a-b) - ITSP T2(b-c, b-d) - IMS T3(a-d, d-e) - D(d) - use case 2: A(a) - IP PBX T1(a-b) - ITSP T2(b-c, b-d) - PacketCable T4(c-d) - F(d) - use case 3: E(e) - IMS T3(a-d, e-d) - ITSP T2(b-c, b-d) - Wibro T4(a-d, d-c) - G(c) There are one or two more ITSPs or SBC because all of internet telephony subscribers will not subscribe only one ITSP. There are a lot of domestic ITSPs and international ITSPs or ITXP. Internet telephony should be supported any kind of terminal vendor even though it supports any specific codec. It also supports multi call forwarding service. So, they need multi transcoding such as; - use case 4: C(c) - ITSP T2(c-b, b-d) - ITSP T6(b-a, b-d) - ITSP7 T7(a-d, d-e) - G(d) There are one or two more wideband speech codecs. There has been developing one or two more wideband speech codecs for internet telephony: AMR-WB in 3GPP, VMR-WB in 3GPP2, G.729EV in ITU-T SG 16 Question 10, a wideband codec in ITU-T SG 16 Question 9, and AAC in ISO/IEC. In this convention, Capital letter means a node and lowercase(a, b, c, d, and e) means a codec. A wideband codec encodes voice using 16,000 samples per second (50 ~ 7,000Hz), as opposed to the 8,000 samples per second (300 ~ 3,400Hz) by narrowband codec. A voice quality of wideband codec is better than one of narrowband codec due to support wider band. A tandem transcoding means to encode narrowband codec such as G.711. So, it makes down sampling and worse the voice quality. If two parties(calling party and called party) have two different wideband codecs, transcoders should transcode a wideband codec to another wideband codec without tandem transcoding. If we use a common codec with G.711(tandem), there is no more need multi-transcoding. But, we need a multi-transcoding for supplying a wideband speech high quality to each sides. - use case 5: wideband codec to wideband codec without tandem transcoding Multi transcoding signaling can be useful for internet telephony environments supported by standard; an example VoIP network in quality of service for next generation Voice over IP networks, MSF-TR-QoS-001.final, 2003 Feb, and Telecommunications and Internet Protocol Harmonization over Networks (TIPHON) Release 3; End-to-End Quality of Service in TIPHON Systems; Part 3: Signalling and Control of End-to-End Quality of Service (QoS)-V2.1.2, 2002. Multi trascoder can cover the use case using one or two more conference bridge transcoding model. We would like to discuss open these use cases or another use case. Comments are welcome. Thanks, Kang _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang Tae-Gyu
- Re: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Albrecht.Schwarz
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Nathan Allen Stratton
- RE: Re: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang Tae-Gyu
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding LAI, SHOU WEN -HCHBJ
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang Tae-Gyu
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang Tae-Gyu
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Drage, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Brian Rosen
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Tom-PT Taylor
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Michael Hammer (mhammer)
- Re: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Stephen Sprunk
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Kang Tae-Gyu
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [Sipping] Use cases of multi-transcoding Burger, Eric