- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service
by Brad Knowles 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

At 11:21 AM +0100 2005-07-20, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > On the other hand, maybe all you want to do is to route the > call to the right E911 center. In that case, as long as you > are in the right county you are probably OK. If all you use the "last known position" information for is routing to the correct E911 system, that might be okay. However, one thing I believe you need to also transmit along with the position information is "time since last fix", so that you can get some sort of idea how long it's been since that position information was reasonably accurate. If the time since last fix is several hours, then the person might now be on a plane using a picocell or broadband wireless network connection that is not position-enhanced, and using the position information for routing to the presumed correct E911 system may be inappropriate. So long as we give additional information which gives the system an idea of the expected level of age and error in the information, I think the risks should be able to be reasonably minimized. > In any case, no solution to E911 and VoIP is likely to meet > 100% of its requirements, but if you can improve the situation > significantly, then it is still worth doing. I guess it also depends on what you mean by "significantly". Is a 10% solution significant? Do you need 90% before you're significant? And what's the cost of false positives, as well as false negatives? I think all these factors need to be considered, when looking at potential solutions. -- Brad Knowles, <brad(a)stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.

6 6

RE: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service
by Kuhtz, Christian 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

> On the other hand, maybe all you want to do is to route the > call to the right E911 center. In that case, as long as you > are in the right county you are probably OK. And if by chance you end up in the wrong county, as it happens from mobile phones on occasions, they will immediately transfer you to the right center. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163

2 1

RE: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service
by David Lesher 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

> > > I think this can work. Put a battery backup in the ATA, to power the > GPS and real time clock. The ATA will maintain the internet-routable > address it's using (not necessarily it's own IP address) indefinitely. > If the ATA determines it's routable address (or /23 or whatever subnet) > has changed since being disconnected, it prompts (via voice menu on > connected phones) that it needs to be taken outside and re-GPS'ed. > Flashing light on the box confirms when GPS has synced it's location. > Take it back inside, plug it in, and all is ok again. Or something > along those lines.... So will you block all useage until you do so? Any voluntary compliance solution will fail the CALEA aspect. And I recall reading somewhere in the trade press that the reason some cellular carriers went to GPS-based solutions was they could not meet the FBI specs for accuracy with tower-timing solutions. And needless to say, I can think of many places both cellular and VOIP cam be used where GPS will be worthless. One other point: both the FBI and EMS want to know which office on which floor of the Empire State Building you are in when you call, not just a 2-D circle of X radius. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

1 0

RE: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service
by Church, Chuck 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

I think this can work. Put a battery backup in the ATA, to power the GPS and real time clock. The ATA will maintain the internet-routable address it's using (not necessarily it's own IP address) indefinitely. If the ATA determines it's routable address (or /23 or whatever subnet) has changed since being disconnected, it prompts (via voice menu on connected phones) that it needs to be taken outside and re-GPS'ed. Flashing light on the box confirms when GPS has synced it's location. Take it back inside, plug it in, and all is ok again. Or something along those lines.... Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:32 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Vonage Selects TCS For VoIP E911 Service > >I see no other way of doing this reliably than to put some kind of > >GPS device into the VoIP unit. > > While I agree that GPS is the likely answer, I wasn't expecting the > ability to work inside computer rooms and basements. It doesn't need to work in basements, etc. It only needs to keep a record of the last location it was at when the signal faded away. The emergency service vehicles probably can't get any closer than that anyway. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Paul Vixie on the wgig report
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

I would highly recommend reading Paul's comments, as he brings up some very key issues. He also mentioend one of my pet peeves, which is the WGIG's posture on peering arrangements: Vixie says: [snip] "WGIG seems to be concerned about the general lack of interconnection and the anticompetitive cost of entry for new ISPs. One can see the ITU influence here (ITU more or less regulates international telephone service today), but when I think of the way national sovereignty has been abused to turn telecommunications access fees into [ major GDP sources ], I already don't think I'm going to like the endgame if "regulation" occurs in the area of international Internet peering and interconnection." [snip] Seeing as how the Internet isn't a science project anymore, it's a little difficult to reconcile taking something which are now _business_ decisions for many organizations and turing the entire peering issue into regulatory hell. $.02, - ferg -- Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/wgig-report-july05.html I like the ending - > I think a lot of hard work went into this report, and considering the > number and strength and diversity of views expressed during the WGIG > process, the result has to be called herculean. I'm a bit concerned that > it amounts to a generally agreed upon statement that "somebody ought to > put a bell on that cat". Turning hegemony into democracy by peaceful means > has been done only a few times in human history, and the outlook for this > time isn't good. > > Paul Vixie -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
by David Hubbard 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Hello everyone, not sure if this is off topic or not since it is will be operational in nature if I can ever get the service set up. :-) I'm having the pleasure, or lack thereof, of ordering some data connectivity via a very large clec which requires the ilec to provide the local loops. Well we're about two months past the estimated install completion and all I get from the clec is continuous blame pointed at the ilec who has now missed three install dates and in turn has wasted staff time sitting there from 8 to 5 each of the days; assuming they were really scheduled in the first place. I know the two types of entities don't particularly like each other but at this point how do I tell who's lying to me? I have supposed work order numbers for the ilec but I don't have any direct contact with them to see if they are real numbers and if the disposition of the previous work orders are what the clec has told me or if they are messing things up themselves and trying to cover it up. Thanks, David

2 1

prodigy.net.mx contact please?
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

Preferably someone with mailops experience there, who can troubleshoot what appears to be some mail delivery brokenness at prodigy.net.mx - that is causing email to their users to be accepted by your users and then lost. regards srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

Paul Vixie on the wgig report
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/wgig-report-july05.html I like the ending - > I think a lot of hard work went into this report, and considering the > number and strength and diversity of views expressed during the WGIG > process, the result has to be called herculean. I'm a bit concerned that > it amounts to a generally agreed upon statement that "somebody ought to > put a bell on that cat". Turning hegemony into democracy by peaceful means > has been done only a few times in human history, and the outlook for this > time isn't good. > > Paul Vixie -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

Re: Non-English Domain Names Likely Delayed
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

>> Already, some 21 TLDs are whitelisted, including .cn, .tw, a number >> of European ccTLDs, .museum, and .info. Any other registrars who >> want to be supported can simply E-mail Gerv at the Mozilla >> Foundation, or his Opera counterpart, and give them a pointer to >> their anti-spoofing rules. I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a system with a known vulnerability and try and work around it by having some people agree they'll police the exploit. No doubt the people protecting us will be tempted to exploit it themselves by trying to sell the spoofs to the spoofed domain owner as essential international branding (.mobi, yeah. .com is shorter and people should learn about content negotiation to present suitable content to mobiles, no need to buy your domains all over again) If this goes ahead the browser needs a default on button for "please don't expose me to this spoofing attack" brandon

8 23

RE: clec vs ilec, how do you know who's lying?
by Reeves, Rob 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Jason "Feren" Olsen: > So go to the website for the ILEC and find the conect information. As an example, SBC plasters > information for the different teams all over their pages. If you identify that you're with your employer > when you call in and summarize the problem, you'll get transferred to somebody who can answer your > question on the ILEC work orders. Hell, they'll probably leap at the chance to "help" you in order to > try and convince you to move away from the CLEC. This may or may not work the way you'd think. As far as the ILEC is/should be concerned, their customer is the CLEC since that's where the work order came from. If you contact the ILEC and just happen to get that person who doesn't care, you'd be in luck. Otherwise, they'll likely say that there's nothing they can do, and that you must escallate through the CLEC...which quite frankly is exactly what you should be doing. If it's taken this long for them to not bring up your service, you should be holding your account rep by his/her ears and screaming through a bull-horn, mercilessly. Push on the sales side and make them do the leg-work. Demand to speak with a manager, and if you don't start getting satisfactory answers within 24 hours, go to the manager's manager, and continue up to VP level if necessary. With enough pressure from the top, these folks will suck it up and get it done, despite any animosity between them. Best of luck! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rob Reeves IP Network Engineer Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. 703-456-4172 rreeves(a)arbinet.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0