Results tagged “UC” from IP Communications and Technology
OCS is a Unified Communications (UC) product that integrates with Microsoft applications. It provides voice, presence, web/audio/video conferencing and integration with messaging systems. OCS can also integrate with PBXs, both TDM and IP-PBX. The introduction of OCS in the fall of 2007 created a lot of market hype and in my view, confusion. Microsoft marketing did a great job of capturing media attention and giving the impression that OCS was a revolutionary new communications technology and that enterprise communications, from that point forward, would be transformed forever. So effective was the marketing campaign, that some large organizations halted their VoIP migration planning in order to consider how OCS might alter their strategy.
The intent of this article and more that will follow, is to separate hype from reality so that you can make informed decisions about UC and how OCS should fit into your UC strategy. This first in this series of OCS articles discusses the topics of Call Admission Control (CAC) and Quality of Service (QoS).
Call Admission Control and Quality of Service – Short Tutorial
In the context of telephony, CAC refers to a telephony system's ability to decide whether a call request should be allowed or not. In the world of IP Telephony, VoIP is the common method of transporting voice. Analogue voice is converted to a digital from, encapsulated in IP packets, and then transported across a data network. A data network is made of a series of network links all of which have limits with respect to the amount of data they can carry at any give time. When a network link is oversubscribed, devices responsible for sending the data across the links will randomly drop data, which is what they are designed to do.
Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms can be designed into networks to ensure that during periods of congestion, certain types of data will get priority over others. In IP Telephony implementations, voice and telephony-signaling data packets are marked with a priority label that informs routers that, in the event of congestion, that they should give priority to the telephony packets. However, if the amount of prioritized traffic exceeds a links capacity, then the router has no choice but to randomly drop even this high priority traffic. If the high priority traffic is telephone conversations then the quality of all calls will be affected, not just the call that exceeded the links capacity. This is where CAC steps in to avoid this situation.
CAC approaches vary but in all cases it consists of the system not allowing more calls than a resource can support. The most robust method will, in real-time, discover the available bandwidth available across the entire path of a proposed new call, then decide if the call should be allowed, and reserve the resource for the duration of the call. If insufficient resources are available the system can refuse the call or send the call across a backup path (like a PSTN gateway). More basic systems require a human to configure the system in advance with the maximum number of calls that should be allowed across a particular network path regardless of how much of the resource is available at the time of the call request.
Some of the arguments that I've heard, usually from vendors that don't support CAC, is that a network can be engineered in advance so that the over subscription problem never occurs (design for worst case). For a number of reasons, that approach is not practical in large enterprise environments. For one thing, bandwidth is not free. Second large IP networks are often designed so that automatic rerouting can occur during failures. In many instances the backup links will have less bandwidth than the primary links. So, a system designed to allow a certain number of calls based on a primary link's bandwidth could over subscribe a backup link.
OCS Support for QoS and CAC
While OCS does support marking voice payload packets for priority network treatment (DiffServ through DSCP) that functionality is not enabled by default. OCS has no Call Admission Control functionality. Microsoft claims that QoS and CAC are not required to ensure voice quality in an OCS environment. Microsoft uses a proprietary CODEC called RTAudio. The RTAudio codec is designed to detect network congestion or quality issues and to modify its bandwidth requirement accordingly. Also, the CODEC has an algorithm that allows it to send multiple duplicate packets to increase the probability that packets will arrive at their destination when network problems are encountered. As a result Microsoft argues that QoS and CAC are not required.
In my view, that logic is fine for Internet Telephony solutions. That is, if you’re transporting voice traffic across the Internet, then a CODEC that modifies its data usage and sends multiple copies of packets, makes sense. When transporting VoIP across the Internet, QoS markings will be ignored. In addition, there is no practical way of detecting in advance of call setup whether sufficient bandwidth is available along the entire call path. Even if one could determine that in advance, there is no way of ensuring that the desirable network conditions will persist for the duration of the call. And, if the fact that your throwing more packets at the problem, adversely affects other Internet traffic, who cares? One has little or no control of network conditions of random source and destination paths across the Internet. So it makes sense to use whatever means are at your disposal to ensure that your traffic gets through, and there is no point in employing mechanisms that won't make any difference.
But that logic does not fly in enterprise class telephony environments. First, while it is true that the RTAudio CODEC adjusts its bandwidth usage based on network conditions, it does not accomplish this instantaneously and therefore voice quality may be affected during the transition period since the algorithm starts with the assumption that there are no network issues. Secondly, while the CODEC can reduce its bandwidth usage, it does not reduce it to zero. When not using redundancy, the CODEC can reduce its consumption from 45Kb/s to 15Kb/s. Additionally, redundancy (sending multiple packet copies) may exacerbate a network congestion issue and potentially adversely affect competing enterprise traffic.
Additionally, what if WAN link is heavily congested? Should the system continue to process all requests across that link, even if the RTAudio CODEC is not able to compensate sufficiently to ensure adequate quality? With no CAC capability, this is exactly what OCS would do in that situation. Also, what if the business requirements dictate that a high fidelity CODEC is mandatory? The OCS approach would not be able to meet this requirement under congested network conditions. A properly engineered QoS solution with associated CAC however, could.
Conclusion
An IP Telephony solution, including OCS, when deployed in a typical large enterprise environment, cannot practically guarantee consistent voice quality without incorporating QoS and CAC mechanisms, end of story.
Notice, I did qualify the above statement with the word “practically”. It’s possible to engineer almost any technology deployment, no matter how deficient the technology may be, if one is free to ignore practical constraints such as business requirements, cost, manageability and scalability.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Practice Principal
RIC Services, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Stumble It!
UC and Mobility
I agree, and I have posted previously on how innovation and the move towards openness, exemplified by Apple's iPhone, Google's Android, Verizon's intention to open their network to non-Verizon devices, and new spectrum allocation, are key indicators of a trend towards a richer communications experience. Unified Communications technology is poised to exploit these changes and its effect will be significant to the mobility industry and to employee productivity.
Telecommunications Service Providers will have no alternative but to embrace the change and to develop innovative new business models and technology. It's not an easy transition for them to make. However, I'm convinced that defensive strategies designed to protect traditional high-margin revenue sources and legacy investments are doomed to failure.
Intelligent Presence Services and associated functional attributes such as, filtering, availability, accessibility, willingness, capabilities, directory services, federation and awareness, are all critical elements to maximizing the benefits of Unified Communications. Persistence and message acknowledgment are also necessary elements of a UC system to effectively address communications between business applications / processes and humans.
By leveraging capabilities enabled by, IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for example, a carrier could offer a Federated Presence and Directory service that would enhance enterprise UC applications. As an example, a service provider's Presence service could be leveraged to compliment a city's Crisis Management Plan.
Upon declaration of the crisis event, the service is invoked. Based on presence status and availability, the system locates and sends real-time notifications to City officials. Notification is expedited since notifications are only sent to officials based on known availability and capability status. If an official is not available on any device during the initial notification, the service continually monitors the person’s status and sends the notification the moment that the availability of the individual has been detected. The service persists until all officials have been notified and all critical notifications have been acknowledged and recorded.
Communications Enabled Business Processes (CEBP)
Art also discusses the UC aspects of integrating business applications and processes with human communications. This is an area of UC that Avaya began promoting heavily in 2007. We are in the very early stages of CEBP, but many are predicting that it is the area from which business will gain the most benefit from Unified Communications. As Art mentions, "business process analysis and consulting are key to using such technologies".
Understanding a company's business processes and identifying areas in the business flows that can benefit from the integration of UC applications is not trivial. For the past year, I have dedicated a large proportion of my time and effort in acquiring a better understanding of the value chain elements and business process flows and how UC should be integrated. As I have stated previously, the CEBP element of Unified Communications presents a tremendous challenge to industry vendors, consultants and analysts who have to date, been focused on the infrastructure elements of UC. Those who are not able to adapt will be relegated to the commoditized and low-margin plumbing aspects of UC.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Consultant
RIC Services
Stumble It!
A few weeks ago, Nancy Jamison, posted this article on the subject of UC definitions.
For now, I am satisfied with my latest definition:
"Unified Communications is a term that describes the continuing evolution of communications technology which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context, and with a common experience. Its purpose is to optimize business processes and enhance human communications by reducing latency, managing flows, and eliminating device and media dependencies."
On the subject of business benefits, Marty Parker has written a couple of informative articles that help to map UC applications to job and value chain elements:
Top UC Applications are Now Apparent
Does UC Help my Enterprise?
Thanks Marty, your articles have helped in my understanding of which (and where), UC applications fit in the value chain. I look forward to your future articles on the subject of where UC fits in other industries, besides manufacturing.
A few case-studies have emerged that describe how UC and Communications Enabled Business Processes have optimized business processes. In many instances the benefits appear quite compelling. Still, credible and quantifiable benefits related to productivity and customer service improvements, suitable for inclusion in the financial portion of a business justification remain illusive.
Until, we have accumulated a richer history that can be referenced, the vendor community must step up and provide industry consultants, analysts and end users with the tools, methods and examples that help to quantify the business benefits of UC.
Rick McCharles
Unified Communications Consultant, Toronto, Ontario Canada
RIC Services
Stumble It!
If you haven't already, I suggest that you read the following posts, which represent a perspective on the industry with some mild debate on the state of VoIP.
Telecosm - Ike Elliott, VoIP is Dead. Long Live VoIP
New Telephony - Kelly M. Teal, Worst of 2007: VoIP
Unified Communications - Ken Camp, A Brief Look at 2007 - The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Conversationware - Matt Lamber, VoIP is plumbing
Digital Common Sense - Ken Camp, More on VoIP as Plumbing
FierceVoIP - VoIP crusader recants
Saunderslog.com - Alec Saunders, End of standalone IP telephony? Hogwash!
Jeff Pulver Blog - 2008: The Year VoIP is Disruptive (Again)
The postings and ensuing conversations are interesting and varied. Everything from VoIP is dead, to VoIP is just plumbing, to 2008 will be the best year yet for VoIP. Why should there be such a divergence of opinion among industry veterans? In my view, much of the debate and disagreement is related to what has become a pet peeve of mine, which is DEFINITION! We can't even begin to come close to a consensus on the subject unless we know precisely what it is we are discussing.
Many within the IP Communications business, would insist that the definitions for VoIP, IP Telephony and Unified Communications are well understood and clearly defined. However, I am convinced, that the general public, even technical savvy folks, are confused about the technology, its definitions, vendor strategies and how it all comes together to solve business problems. This is not just a matter of opinion. I've had many discussions with customers including those from medium size enterprise, government, large integrators and service providers, and all of them struggle to define the terms, and to understand the technology and its tangible benefits.
While endless debates on exact definitions are not productive, it's time we move past the marketing hype and techno babble and come to some agreement on some common definitions. Until then, how can we possibly hope to quantify market growth or business benefits?
The common use of the term Unified Communications to describe everything under the Sun is responsible for much of the confusion. For example, I've read many growth projections for Unified Communications but in my view, the numbers are meaningless without a precise definition. After all what's included in the projections? Is the integration of communications with business applications such as CRM and ERP included? What about video conferencing, audio conferencing, mobility, or good old IP Telephony?
What follows are the descriptions I use to describe VoIP, IP Telephony and Unified Communications, all of which I consider to be part of IP Communications.
VoIP
In the strictest definition, Voice over Internet Protocol, can be defined as the method by which analogue voice is digitized, transported from a source to a destination over an IP network, and converted back to analogue. Based on this definition, it is a mature and well-proven technology and can be considered a plumbing aspect of IP Telephony and Unified Communications. Other plumbing components could include the network infrastructure, QoS, ISDN circuits and other services responsible for the transport of voice. Based on this definition, VoIP is dead in terms of innovation or any new impact on the IP Communications industry. Therefore the term VoIP, should not even be part of a business conversation with an enterprise customer about the benefits of UC. It is merely an enabler and is irrelevant.
However, we all know that VoIP is used to describe much more than just voice transport. It has become the de facto definition for nearly all IP-based consumer voice services such as Vonage and Skype among many others. Based on this broader definition, VoIP is alive and well and in fact, we are still early in its evolution!
I prefer to use the term IP Telephony to describe voice services which utilize VoIP as the transport mechanisms. However, I always make a point of making a distinction between Consumer IP Telephony and Enterprise-Class IP Telephony. The former is based on best-effort delivery mechanisms while the latter is based on voice transport across a secure infrastructure with QoS enabled delivery.
IP Telephony
I replaced the term VoIP with IP Telephony in my vocabulary approximately 8 years ago when it became apparent to me, that IP-based voice, was not just about point-to-point links designed to provide enterprise with toll bypass services. IP Telephony describes all of the system components (hardware & software) that combine to produce business-class voice services.
The components may include:
- Call signaling and control
- Media services
- Media Gateways (for connection to the PSTN)
- Messaging
- Conferencing
- Advanced features (Like Find-Me / Follow-Me)
- Automatic Call Distribution
An IP Telephony system will typically use VoIP as its transport mechanism but will usually also, utilize traditional TDM or analogue circuits for voice transport.
Unified Communications
The ubiquitous use of this term and all of the associated hype is responsible for much of the current confusion and ambiguity related to IP-based Communications. I don't know the context under which the term "Unified Communications" was originally conceived, but it's virtually impossible to find a concise and precise definition of what it describes today. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that IP Telephony and IP-PBX systems were suddenly renamed to Unified Communication systems. In many instances, the change happened literally overnight even if there was no change whatsoever in functionality.
I recently wrote a post on the subject. While I wait for a better definition that I can share with my customers, I came up with:
Unified Communications is part of the continuing evolution of IP Communications technology which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context and with a common experience.
I realize it is a somewhat simplistic definition, but I believe it does an adequate job of describing UC as a framework or system. VoIP, IP Telephony, Mobility, Communications Enabled Business Processes, Mashups, Contact Centres, Collaboration, Presence, Filtering are all components or attributes which may, or may not be, part of a Unified Communications system.
Conclusion
The industry as a whole will benefit if its influencers move away from the hype and technical jargon, towards consensus on definitions and quantifiable descriptions of the business benefits of IP Communications.
Rick McCharles
IP Communications Consultant
RIC Services
Stumble It!
Many of the Unified Communications products that have
emerged this past year were not new at all. Rather, in many instances the new
products were nothing more than branding changes to an existing product line. This
re-branding of an existing technology reminds me of a similar change that
occurred in the mid 1990s. At that time, multi-port Ethernet bridges suddenly
morphed into Layer 2 switches. Despite the widespread perception, there was
nothing dramatically different between bridges and switches. At the time, I
worked for Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and many of our customers and
DEC sales representatives were concerned that we were missing the boat since we
didn’t manufacture switches. Fortunately, DEC marketing was able to address
this product gap literally overnight by renaming the DECbridge product to the DECswitch.
And voila, we were in the switching game!
Microsoft’s release of OCS 2007 accelerated the awareness of
the benefits of unifying communication services and devices but in my view,
Unified Communications is simply the continuing evolution of IP Communications
that was enabled by VoIP during the late 1990s; which later enabled IP PBXs and IP Telephony. In fact, many of the
attributes, devices and functionality attributed to Unified Communications are
not new at all. USB handsets,
Softphones, Presence / Status / Availability, IM and Simultaneous Ring were all
part of the Hosted IP Telephony services that I was helping Telus to develop in
2002.
So, despite what many marketing organizations would like us
to believe, Unified Communications is not a new concept, nor is it a dramatic
new technology breakthrough. I’m fine with calling the current state of IP
Communications, Unified Communications. I’m reasonably confident that within a
year or two, the term UC will be replaced with a new term that suggests
something dramatically new.
With that little rant out of the way, what is Unified
Communications and is there a succinct and accurate definition? I’ve seen many
noble attempts to define UC, but I don’t like any of them. Most definitions are
several sentences (or paragraphs) long and usually include multi modes, multi
media, any device, any time, presence, filtering, availability, people,
processes, applications, messaging, blah, blah.
The challenge is that most definitions are attempting to
describe a concept or a point in time in the evolution of IP Communications.
One can implement some aspects of UC, but saying that “we are implementing
Unified Communications” is meaningless. It would be like saying “we are implementing
Information Technology”.
So, here is my humble and likely inadequate definition of
Unified Communications:
Unified
Communications is part of the continuing evolution of IP Communications technology which automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context
and with a common experience.
I welcome your suggestions for a better definition of Unified Communications providing it is less than three sentences!
Rick McCharles, IP Communications Consultant
RIC Services
Stumble It!
