Traditional telecom infrastructure was often assembled piece by piece: a switch for voice traffic; a separate routing system; another platform for billing; dedicated monitoring tools; external reporting systems and manual carrier workflows. That architecture can work but as wholesale VoIP operations grow the connections between those systems can become as important as the systems themselves.
Class 4 Fusion takes a different approach by bringing core wholesale voice functions into one operating platform. DeNoVoLab describes Class 4 Fusion as an all-in-one platform for termination and origination traffic that combines switching, routing, billing, portals, reporting and automation. Its current product information also lists monitoring, fraud controls, rate generation, CDR and PCAP backup and cloud or self-hosted deployment. (DeNoVoLab)
This distinction matters because infrastructure decisions are ultimately business decisions. The right architecture can influence operational cost, scalability, routing efficiency, billing accuracy and the amount of manual work required to manage a growing carrier network.
Traditional Telecom Infrastructure vs Class 4 Fusion
The traditional approach: multiple systems connected together
A conventional wholesale VoIP environment may use separate platforms for major operational functions:
Class 4 switching
Routing
Billing
CDR management
Monitoring
Rate management
Customer portals
Vendor management
Reporting
Fraud detection
This modular approach can provide flexibility. It can also create integration requirements.
For example, a routing platform may need rate information from a billing system. Billing may need CDR information from the switch. Monitoring may require data from several network components. Customer reporting may depend on information collected across multiple databases.
Every integration becomes another dependency.
Think of it like running a logistics company where inventory, delivery tracking, invoicing and customer support all use different databases. Each system can work well independently. The difficulty appears when employees need information from all four systems to answer one business question.
Class 4 Fusion: An integrated operating model
DeNoVoLab positions Class 4 Fusion as a "telco-in-a-box" style platform. Its current product information brings switching, routing, billing, monitoring, reporting, backup and operator workflows together. The same environment also includes client, vendor and agent portals. (DeNoVoLab)
The difference is therefore architectural.
Traditional model:
Switch → integration → routing → integration → billing → integration → reporting
Integrated model:
Switching + routing + billing + monitoring + reporting + automation
The second approach does not eliminate every external integration. It can reduce the number of internal systems required to operate the core wholesale workflow.
Why this matters at scale
Suppose an operator manages 10 carriers and 50 customers.
A fragmented environment may remain manageable.
Now imagine 200 carriers and 2,000 customers.
The number of relationships between systems and operational processes can increase significantly.
That is where integration debt can become an infrastructure cost.
2. Switching and Routing: From Basic Traffic Handling to Intelligent Control
Traditional switching focuses primarily on call processing
A Class 4 switch is fundamentally responsible for handling carrier-grade voice traffic.
Its job includes accepting traffic, applying routing logic and forwarding calls toward appropriate destinations.
Traditional infrastructure can perform this function effectively.
The challenge is what happens around it.
If routing is managed separately then billing is separate from routing and monitoring sits in another system the operator may need several tools to understand why a particular call behaved the way it did.
Class 4 Fusion combines routing with switching
DeNoVoLab currently lists LCR and prefix rules, trunk groups, failover and margin-aware routing as Class 4 Fusion capabilities. Its product information also identifies A-Z traffic, US domestic traffic and DID or origination workflows. (DeNoVoLab)
This allows routing to become part of the broader operating workflow.
For example:
A call arrives. The switch identifies the traffic. The routing engine evaluates the configured route. The selected carrier receives the call. The resulting CDR contributes to billing and reporting. Monitoring can evaluate network performance.
That creates a connected chain from call initiation to commercial settlement.
Dynamic routing can add another layer
Traditional routing often depends heavily on static route tables and rate information.
Modern routing can incorporate more variables.
DeNoVoLab's published architecture describes routing based on factors such as time; caller ID; capacity; ASR and ACD. (DeNoVoLab)
This changes the routing question from:
"Which route is configured?"
to:
"Which route best fits the current traffic and business policy?"
Example: The cheapest carrier is not always the best carrier
Imagine two carriers:
Carrier A: $0.0040 per minute Carrier B: $0.0045 per minute
Carrier A appears more economical.
Now assume Carrier A has deteriorating answer rates while Carrier B continues to perform consistently.
At 10 million minutes the nominal cost difference is:
10,000,000 × $0.0005 = $5,000
An operator may decide that the quality improvement from Carrier B justifies the additional cost.
The point is not that Carrier B is always better.
The point is that modern routing gives operators more variables with which to make the decision.
Billing and CDR Management: Connecting Network Activity With Revenue
Traditional environments can create reconciliation work
A call is both a network event and a financial transaction.
If the switch records the call while a separate billing system rates it then the operator needs reliable data movement between the two environments.
The same applies to vendor billing.
The operator needs to know:
What the customer used
Which carrier handled the call
What the carrier charged
What the customer was billed
What margin remained
If those records live in different systems then reconciliation can require additional processes.
Class 4 Fusion puts billing inside the operating environment
DeNoVoLab's current Class 4 Fusion offering includes rate decks, invoices, balances, credit limits and customer and vendor billing. Its vendor workflow also includes supplier rates, CDRs, invoices and traffic settlement. (DeNoVoLab)
That creates a more direct relationship between network activity and financial operations.
Small errors become large at wholesale volume
Consider an operator processing 100 million minutes each month.
A pricing discrepancy of just $0.0001 per minute would represent:
100,000,000 × $0.0001 = $10,000
This is an illustrative calculation rather than a claim about any particular operator.
It demonstrates the economics of wholesale voice.
A fraction of a cent can become a meaningful financial figure when multiplied across large traffic volumes.
CDRs become an operational asset
CDRs are not only billing records.
They can also support:
Route analysis
Carrier evaluation
Fraud investigation
Customer reporting
Traffic forecasting
Dispute resolution
Financial reconciliation
DeNoVoLab's architecture describes a high-volume CDR approach with local and cloud storage plus historical querying. (DeNoVoLab)
This is particularly relevant when the network moves from millions to hundreds of millions of call records.
Monitoring and Automation: Reducing the Operational Burden
Traditional infrastructure often relies on separate monitoring
An operator may have one tool for network monitoring; another for SIP traces; another for billing alerts and another for fraud detection.
The problem is not necessarily the quality of each tool.
The problem is context.
An alert saying that traffic has increased is useful.
An alert that connects the increase to a particular customer; carrier; trunk and destination is much more actionable.
Class 4 Fusion connects monitoring with operations
DeNoVoLab's current platform describes real-time operational control alongside monitoring and fraud controls. It also lists automated fraud blocking; archive automation; reporting and invoicing. (DeNoVoLab)
The broader concept is important:
Monitoring should lead to action.
For example:
Traffic anomaly → detection → policy evaluation → route or security action
rather than:
Traffic anomaly → dashboard → manual investigation → manual intervention
Automation becomes increasingly valuable as traffic grows
Imagine an operator managing 100 carrier rate decks.
Each rate deck may contain thousands of destinations.
If rate updates require manual review and import then the workload can grow quickly.
DeNoVoLab lists automatic rate generation; automatic rate delivery; automatic route testing and automatic rate import among its automation capabilities. (DeNoVoLab)
Automation does not mean removing human oversight.
It means moving humans away from repetitive procedures toward exception handling and commercial decisions.
Example: Route testing
A carrier offers an attractive new termination rate.
A traditional workflow might require an engineer to configure the route; test it; inspect results and then manually update production routing.
An automated workflow can make route testing more repeatable.
The operator can define the testing process then use results to decide whether the route should receive more traffic.
That is particularly useful when carrier relationships multiply.
Scalability: How the Two Approaches Behave Under Growth
Traditional infrastructure can scale through additional components
A modular architecture can be expanded by adding more servers; more switches; additional databases or separate tools.
This can be effective.
But every additional component introduces another operational consideration.
The business may need to manage:
More licenses
More integrations
More monitoring
More support contracts
More data synchronization
More configuration
The technical infrastructure grows.
The administrative surface grows with it.
Class 4 Fusion is designed around integrated scaling
DeNoVoLab currently publishes a 42k CPS figure for Class 4 Fusion and describes the platform as capable of handling high-volume carrier traffic. Its architecture documentation describes distributed switching and routing instances that can operate within the same facility or across separate facilities. (DeNoVoLab)
These figures are vendor-published capabilities. Actual performance will depend on deployment architecture; hardware; traffic characteristics; media requirements and routing complexity.
The architectural principle is more important than any individual benchmark.
As traffic grows the operator can expand the infrastructure around the same operating model.
Capacity planning should consider more than CPS
Wholesale VoIP infrastructure should evaluate:
CPS: how quickly calls are established.
Concurrent sessions: how many calls are active.
Bandwidth: how much traffic the network carries.
CDR volume: how many transactions must be stored.
Routing complexity: how many decisions the system must process.
Billing volume: how many records require rating.
Peak traffic: how much additional capacity is required during demand spikes.
For example a network may process 5,000 CPS but have relatively short calls.
Another may process 2,000 CPS with significantly longer sessions.
The infrastructure requirements can therefore differ despite the lower CPS figure.
Operational Economics: Infrastructure Cost Is More Than Licensing
Traditional infrastructure can have hidden costs
A platform's purchase price is only one component of infrastructure economics.
Operators should also consider:
Integration
Maintenance
Upgrades
Monitoring
Support
Training
Data storage
Hardware
Cloud infrastructure
Engineering time
A low-cost switch may become expensive if it requires several additional systems to deliver billing; monitoring and reporting.
Class 4 Fusion changes the cost equation
DeNoVoLab currently offers a Community Edition with 500 ports at no charge for live-traffic evaluation. Its current commercial model lists $0.50 per port per month for additional port capacity and $0.0003 per minute for usage. (DeNoVoLab)
The value proposition is therefore not simply free software.
It is the ability to evaluate the same operating model before scaling into a commercial deployment.
The operator can install the platform on a server or VM or use AWS or Google Cloud according to the current product information. (DeNoVoLab)
Example: comparing operational models
Imagine two hypothetical environments.
Environment A
Switch license + separate billing + monitoring platform + reporting system + integration work.
Environment B
Integrated Class 4 platform + infrastructure cost + deployment and support.
Environment B is not automatically cheaper.
The correct comparison requires calculating total cost of ownership.
However the integrated approach can reduce the number of systems that need to be purchased; maintained and connected.
That is the economic argument for consolidation.
Class 4 Fusion vs Competitive Telecom Platforms
DeNoVoLab Class 4 Fusion
DeNoVoLab positions Class 4 Fusion as an operator-ready Class 4 business system rather than simply a switching product or billing add-on.
Its current platform combines:
Switching
Routing
Billing
Monitoring
Reporting
CDR and PCAP backup
Client portal
Vendor portal
Agent portal
Rate management
Fraud controls
Automation
It supports termination and origination traffic and provides cloud or self-hosted deployment options. (DeNoVoLab)
The central architectural proposition is consolidation.
Instead of building a wholesale operation around multiple disconnected systems the operator can use one platform for the core traffic workflow.
PortaOne PortaSwitch
PortaOne takes a broader converged telecom approach.
Its current documentation describes PortaSwitch as a unified platform for telecommunications service providers; wholesale carriers; ISPs; MVNOs and NGN operators.
The architecture includes PortaBilling for real-time converged billing and service provisioning plus PortaSIP as a Class 4 and Class 5 SIP softswitch with media functionality. PortaBilling also controls call processing and real-time routing. (PortaOne Documentation)
PortaOne's architecture therefore extends beyond pure wholesale Class 4 switching.
It is particularly relevant for organizations that want a broader service-provider platform covering multiple telecom services.
TelcoBridges ProSBC
TelcoBridges approaches the market primarily through a carrier-grade Session Border Controller.
Its current material describes ProSBC as a software-based SBC supporting up to 60,000 concurrent sessions per server and up to 350,000 SIP endpoint registrations. It supports deployment on VMware; KVM/Proxmox; AWS; Azure and bare metal. (TelcoBridges)
Its architecture focuses on carrier peering; routing; security; SIP interoperability and network-edge control.
TelcoBridges also positions ProSBC as an alternative to traditional hardware-oriented SBC deployments. (TelcoBridges)
What the comparison actually means
These platforms should not be evaluated as identical products.
DeNoVoLab Class 4 Fusion is centered on integrated wholesale Class 4 operations.
PortaSwitch is a broader converged telecom service platform with Class 4 and Class 5 capabilities.
TelcoBridges ProSBC is primarily a carrier-grade SBC and voice-network edge platform.
The correct selection depends on the operator's architecture and business requirements.
When Traditional Infrastructure Still Makes Sense
Modular architecture can offer flexibility
Traditional infrastructure is not automatically obsolete.
There are scenarios where an operator may deliberately prefer multiple specialized systems.
For example a large carrier may already have:
A dedicated billing platform
A mature CRM
A specialized fraud platform
A separate data warehouse
A dedicated SBC layer
An established monitoring stack
Replacing everything with one platform may not be desirable.
In such an environment a Class 4 platform needs strong APIs and interoperability.
DeNoVoLab currently highlights API integration for CDR; reporting and switch control. (DeNoVoLab)
Specialized requirements can justify specialization
A large enterprise may require a specific compliance system.
A global carrier may have an existing OSS/BSS architecture.
A service provider may require specialized analytics.
In these situations an integrated Class 4 platform can still function as the voice-processing core while external systems remain part of the broader architecture.
The real question is not:
"One platform or many?"
It is:
"Where does consolidation create value and where does specialization create value?"
When Class 4 Fusion Becomes Particularly Attractive
Growing wholesale operators
An operator adding customers and carriers quickly can benefit from having switching; routing; billing and monitoring connected.
New VoIP businesses
A new operator may not want to assemble a complete telecom stack from multiple vendors.
The 500-port Community Edition gives businesses a way to evaluate Class 4 Fusion with live traffic before scaling commercially. (DeNoVoLab)
Operators seeking operational consolidation
If teams currently move information between several systems then consolidation can potentially reduce administrative complexity.
Businesses prioritizing automation
Operators dealing with frequent rate changes; route testing; invoicing and fraud events can benefit from automated workflows.
Wholesale businesses expanding into origination
Class 4 Fusion supports termination and origination workflows within the same platform. (DeNoVoLab)
This can be relevant for businesses that want to manage outbound and inbound voice operations through one infrastructure foundation.
A Practical Decision Framework
Before replacing traditional telecom infrastructure or selecting a new Class 4 platform consider these questions.
1. How many systems are involved today?
Map switching; routing; billing; monitoring; reporting and carrier management.
2. How much integration work is required?
Identify APIs; middleware; custom scripts and manual data transfers.
3. Where does operational data live?
Determine whether finance; network and routing teams work from the same data or separate sources.
4. How much manual work exists?
Measure time spent on rate updates; route testing; billing; reporting and fraud investigation.
5. What does growth look like?
Estimate future customers; carriers; minutes; CPS and concurrent sessions.
6. What does downtime cost?
Calculate the commercial impact of service interruption.
7. What is the total cost of ownership?
Include licenses; infrastructure; support; integration; maintenance and engineering time.
8. What needs to remain specialized?
Not every function must necessarily move into the Class 4 platform.
This framework provides a more useful evaluation than comparing feature checklists alone.
Conclusion: Class 4 Fusion Represents a Different Infrastructure Philosophy
The comparison between Class 4 Fusion and traditional telecom infrastructure is ultimately a comparison between two operating philosophies.
Traditional infrastructure often relies on multiple specialized systems connected through integrations.
That model can provide flexibility and may be appropriate for organizations with established OSS/BSS environments.
Class 4 Fusion takes a more consolidated approach.
DeNoVoLab combines switching; routing; billing; monitoring; reporting; portals; CDR management and automation within one Class 4 environment. Its current product information also supports termination and origination traffic; cloud or self-hosted deployment and automated operational workflows. (DeNoVoLab)
The economic argument is straightforward.
When traffic increases from millions to tens or hundreds of millions of minutes the operator does not only need more processing capacity.
It needs more routing decisions.
More billing records.
More carrier relationships.
More monitoring.
More rate management.
More fraud controls.
More reporting.
More operational coordination.
If each function requires another disconnected system then infrastructure complexity can grow alongside traffic.
An integrated architecture attempts to break that relationship.
PortaSwitch demonstrates a broader converged approach by combining PortaBilling with PortaSIP for Class 4 and Class 5 telecom services. (PortaOne Documentation) TelcoBridges ProSBC takes a more specialized SBC approach with high session capacity and carrier-edge capabilities. (TelcoBridges)
Therefore the right question is not whether traditional infrastructure is "bad" or whether Class 4 Fusion is universally better.
The better question is:
Which architecture gives your telecom business the right balance of performance; integration; flexibility; operational control and total cost of ownership?
For a wholesale VoIP operator that wants switching; routing; billing; monitoring and automation connected through one operating environment Class 4 Fusion presents a compelling alternative to assembling those functions separately.
Ready to evaluate the difference?
Explore DeNoVoLab Class 4 Fusion and assess how an integrated Class 4 platform can simplify switching; routing; billing; monitoring and automation for your wholesale VoIP operation. (DeNoVoLab)
0 Comments