Performance Evaluation of G.711 and GSM Codecs on VoIP Applications Using OSPF and RIP Routing Protocols

  • Nadia AftabEmail author
  • Maurin Hassan
  • Muhammad Nadeem Ashraf
  • Akash Patel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 27)


In recent years, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) has quickly become one of the most powerful and popular technologies for communication. From business phones to social messaging applications with millions of users, VoIP is an underlying technology that powers the way each other connects across the world. For this reason, establishing an excellent audio quality has become a challenge for VoIP applications. There are several factors in determining the effective utilization and quality of VoIP solutions, namely: echo control, packet loss, delay variation, jitter, network topology, and more importantly, the choice of voice encoding codec. Choosing the right VoIP codec can make an impeccable difference in voice quality. In this chapter, the behavior of two different voice encoding codecs, namely G.711 and GSM, is evaluated using the Riverbed Modeler 17.5. Simulation results show that G.711 yields a better performance compared to GSM in terms of traffic sent, traffic received, jitter, end-to-end delay, packet delay variation, and mean opinion score (MOS), chosen as performance metrics, indicating that G.711 transmits a better audio quality than GSM in VoIP applications.


G.711 codec GSM codec Riverbed modeler Simulations Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 


  1. 1.
    M. Syed, I.Y. Ambore, Performance evaluation of OSPF and RIP on IPv4 and IPv6 technology using G.711 Codec. Int. J. Comput. Networks Commun. (IJCNC) 8(6), 1–15 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3., Codecs, Last visited 6 July 2018
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    X. Che, L.J. Cobley, VoIP performance over different interior gateway protocols. Int. J. Commun. Netw. Secur. 1(1), 34–41 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    TechPublic, Understanding the protocols underlying dynamic routing, Last visited 6 July 2018
  7. 7.
    H.P. Singh, S. Singh, J. Singh, S.A. Khan, VoIP: state of art for global connectivity-a critical review. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 37(1), 365–379 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W.M. Hussein, S. Jamwal, Comparative analysis of various routing protocols. Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res. 2016, 2 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Ahmed, A.T. Litchfield, S. Ahmed, VoIP performance analysis over IPv4 and IPv6. Int. J. Comput. Netw. Inf. Secur. 11, 43–48 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Besacier, C. Bergamini, D. Vaufreydaz, E. Castelli, The effect of speech and audio compression on speech recognition performance. in IEEE 4th Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, 2002, pp. 301–306Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Sathu, M.A. Shah, Performance monitoring of VoIP with multiple codecs using IPv4 and IPv6to4 tunnelling mechanism on windows and Linux. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2(3), 2–6 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    How does internet work, what is jitter in networking? Last visited 11 Mar 2018
  13. 13.
    CISCO, VoIP – an in-depth analysis, Last visited 11 Mar 2018
  14. 14.
    VoIP mechanic, MOS - mean opinion score for VoIP, Last visited 11 Mar 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Aftab
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maurin Hassan
    • 1
  • Muhammad Nadeem Ashraf
    • 1
  • Akash Patel
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Architectural ScienceRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations