* What are the challenges of adding video to an IP VPN that is already set up for data and voice?
Following our recent newsletter focus on IP Video, we heard from one of our readers with some excellent questions about IPV over an IP-VPN. He asked, “What would you say were the challenges inherent in adding video to an IP VPN that is already set up for data and voice? Some ISPs offer VoIP convergence with data over an IP VPN but not many offer video too. I would have thought that many industries would welcome the addition of video conferencing over their VPN as a way of saving time and money going to meetings. Is there a reason why this is not being offered as an add-on service?”
First, we aren’t aware of any Tier 1 service provider offering a managed video service as an optional addition to their existing IP-VPN portfolio. (If any or our readers is aware of such a service option, please drop us a note and we’ll be happy to investigate.) While it is clear that some two-way, low-speed video communications like a desktop Web camera are riding over some corporate IP-VPNs as ad-hoc traffic, this traffic type (if allowed by the corporate IT manager) is probably carried as a “data” session without the QoS guarantees that accompany a carrier’s managed service for mission critical applications like VoIP or software-as-a-service (SaaS). For example, an enterprise user might utilize a Skype video session on the corporate VPN to communicate with internal colleagues or external clients using available bandwidth; most users of this kind of service have no expectation of service-level guarantees.
By contrast, high-quality video delivered with telepresence services is typically offered as a separate service by the carriers who do offer managed video communications. Or telepresence is directly managed by the enterprise itself with business process rules (like conference scheduling priorities) and with network management tools we’ve discussed in other newsletters.
We asked Brian Washburn, Research Director for Network Services at Current Analysis for his take on the issue. Washburn commented, “Telepresence is a somewhat different animal. Let’s assume it is being used by a large enterprise, which already has dozens of applications on its MPLS corporate IP-VPN. What happens when you add video streams in multiples of 5Mbps, which request highest priority delivery, to the existing MPLS port? All those other corporate applications are squelched”
Washburn continued by suggesting that as a prerequisite to meet the demands of telepresence on an IP-VPN, carriers must also “be able to offer adjustable port speeds on-demand (which they have) to accommodate the raw bandwidth requirements of telepresence and have a way to couple a QoS designation on the fly to the bandwidth ordered on demand (which is still in development).” He concluded, “the end result is that an enterprise could set up automated telepresence sessions that reserve the port capacity coupled with real-time QoS for the session.” But he isn’t sure that “enterprises will feel comfortable adding those 5M-15Mbps high definition video data stream(s) inside their existing MPLS IP VPN carrying all their corporate applications, just on the off chance that something might go wrong.”
Our thanks to the reader for his question and to Mr. Washburn for his insights. If you have an opinion on the subject or if you know of a service provider that includes video within an IP-VPN service, please drop us a e-mail and we’ll follow-up this issue in a future newsletter.
Next time: BroadSoft makes UC easier.
