- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Streaming dead again.
by odlyzko＠dtc.umn.edu 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Todd wrote: (snip) > Now, back to the NANOG-ish content: I know a fundamental change in > technology when I see it, and VOIP is an obvious winner. VOIP has > been smoldering for a few years, and the sudden growth of various > easy-to-implement SIP proxies and service platforms, plus the sudden > drop in price of SIP hard-phones, is going to push growth > tremendously. Currently, the underlying technology is UDP that moves > calls around. This is all well and good until you get thousands, > tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of calls going at once. QoS > is, as Bill says, not a problem right now on public networks; I've > used VOIP across at least three exchange or peering sessions (in each > direction, no less!) and suffered no quality loss, even at 80kbps > rates. However, when a significant percentage of cable and DSL > customers across the country figure this technology out, does this > cause problems for those providers? Is it worthwhile for large > end-user aggregators to start figuring out how they are going to > offer this service locally on their own networks in order to save on > transit traffic to other peers/providers? Or is this merely a tiny > bump in traffic, not worth worrying about? > More interestingly: what happens to the network when the first > "shared" LD software comes into creation? Imagine 1/3 (to pick a > worst-case percentage) of your customers producing and consuming > (possibly) 80kbps of traffic for 5 hours a day as they offer their > local analog lines to anyone who wants to make local calls to that > calling area. > Overseas calling I expect will show similar growth. Nobody wants to > pay $.20 or even $.10 per minute to Asian nations, so as soon as Joe > User figures out how this VOIP stuff works, there will be (is?) a > tendency for UDP increases on inter-continental spans. Nothing new > here; we've all said this was coming for years. Now it's finally > possible - is everyone ready? > JT (snip) VOIP is likely to cause a financial upheaval in the telecom industry, because the overwhelming fraction of revenues still comes from voice services. However, VOIP is likely to have only a minor impact on Internet backbones. The reason is that there simply isn't that much voice traffic. Various estimates (such as those in my papers at <http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/networks.html>) say that already there is about twice as much US Internet backbone traffic as US long distance voice traffic, and that is if you count voice as two 64 Kb/s streams of data. If you use compression, that goes down even further. Now introducing flat rate VOIP service will stimulate voice usage some, but based on various previous experiences, not by enough to make a quantum difference, especially since (again, based on previous experiences) it will take a while for VOIP to spread widely. Andrew Odlyzko

2 1

Streaming dead again.
by Eric Germann 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

Dying at merit.demarc.cogentco.com with 3561ms figures in traceroute. How many would pay some $$$ for this to be moved in the future to a premium service provided by someone like RealMedia. Methinks the merit servers are getting crushed. I'd pony up some $$$ to virtually attend it if it were reliable. Seems a lot less reliable this time around. FWIW, if the only video shot is a long shot of a talking head wireless discussion, save the bandwidth and only stream the audio, or cut to the slides if there are some. Burning 80k to see a pixelated animation doesn't do anyone any good. Eric ========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 "The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the extent of one’s ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky" -- Jon Giorgini of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

7 6

Re: Locating rogue APs
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

> > It appears that kismet requires either someone to walk around the facility > > while running the program or that you have you have it installed on > > machines all over your site. Neither of those options interest me as a > > long term solution to rogue AP monitoring. > You could setup a laptop, a GPS with a data cable, NetStumbler[free], > and a 8dbi 2.5ghz <802.11b> antenna and pickup everything clearly > for a half a mile without walking around. I've just acquired this > setup myself. Google on "war driving +F150" and you'll see a setup > to help for < $55 If you are driving then you might want to build something using the DashPC http://www.dashpc.com/ but for walking around it's even easier if you use a Linux-based PDA like the Sharp Zaurus which runs kismet. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Lawful Interception in the world...
by Pascal Gloor 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

I'm trying to collect some informations on Lawfull Interception over the world... Does any country in the world require such things ? LOGS (6 months archive required) - mail header logs (all mails, in, out, relay) - pop3/imap/webmail access logs (all accounts) - dhcp/dial/adsl/gprs/whatever accounting logs (all users) RealTime - mail interception (IN,OUT,RELAY) for a certain From/To address or a certain IP. the mail has to be encrypted with PGP and sent directly to the Law enforcement as a mail attachement. Thank you for taking 2 minutes to answer to nanog or privatly, this is important. P.

6 5

RE: Lawful Interception in the world...
by Ben Buxton 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

> I'm trying to collect some informations on Lawfull > Interception over the > world... > Does any country in the world require such things ? It's a legal requirement for all ISPs in the Netherlands. If the government wants to snoop on someone, they have to issue a special warrant type, and the ISP must provide copies of all packets for the particular person. >From memory, there is no requirement to "decode" the packets and extract L4+ info. Just the raw IP suffices. There is a system developed and adopted by many ISPs to do this with minumum effort, and almost automated, involving dedicated switches and servers. A users packets are not logged until the warrant arrives, so they cannot say "give us all traffic that user bob sent last week". Ben > LOGS (6 months archive required) > - mail header logs (all mails, in, out, relay) > - pop3/imap/webmail access logs (all accounts) > - dhcp/dial/adsl/gprs/whatever accounting logs (all users) > > RealTime > - mail interception (IN,OUT,RELAY) for a certain From/To > address or a > certain IP. > the mail has to be encrypted with PGP and sent directly to the Law > enforcement as a mail attachement. > > > Thank you for taking 2 minutes to answer to nanog or privatly, this is > important. > > P. > >

1 0

Locating rogue APs
by John Kristoff 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Apologies if this ends up on the list multiple times. I seem to have trouble getting this posted in a timely fashion. In general, MAC OUI designations may indicate a particular AP. IP multicast group participation may also be used by some APs. Some APs have a few unique ports open. Lastly, APs may be found with a radio on a particular default channel. All of these potentially identifying characteristics may be used to help audit the network for rogue IPs. Below is information on locating particular APs: Multicast Groups ---------------- 224.0.1.40 Cisco/Aironet (newer versions) 224.0.1.76 Lucent/Avaya 224.1.0.1 Cisco/Aironet You can locate who group members are by doing the following on a Cisco router: show ip igmp group <group-ip-address> Protocols/Ports --------------- Cisco/Aironet APs have two UDP ports open: 2887 and 7777. Well known AP MAC OUIs ---------------------- 0000f0 Samsung 00022d Lucent (Orinoco) 0002b3 Intel 00032f Global Sun Technology (Linksys) 00045a Linksys 0010e7 BreezeCom (BreezeNet) 0020d8 NetWave Technologies (BayNetworks) 003065 Apple 004005 ANI Communications 004096 Aironet 00508b Compaq 00601d Lucent (WaveLan) 0090d1 Leichu Enterprise Co. (Addtron) 00a0f8 Symbol Technologies 00e029 Standard Microsystems Corp. 080002 3Com 080046 Sony Well known AP default channels ------------------------------ 4: Lucent 6: Aironet, Compaq, BreezeNet John

5 5

Streaming: Where are the Slides?
by PJ 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

I was curious if it was possible to ask the excellent videographers at the NANOG conference to re-enable the slides over the Real Audio videostream. The slides were visible yesterday, but today they are not. Much of what the speakers say refer to the slides. More importantly it's much more useful using the video channel to see the slides than to seeing images of the speaker. Thanks for anything that can be done about this before the tutorials are over, and thanks for the awesome streaming job. Video and audio has been coming in great in Florida. pj __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com

3 2

Re: VoIP QOS best practices
by Stephen Sprunk 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Thus spake "Ray Burkholder" <ray(a)oneunified.net> > QoS is important on T1 circuits and makes voice higher priority. QOS is a much broader subject than just giving voice priority treatment. > Voice can even be done on sub T1 circuits with excellent results. Indeed. I've unfortunately had many instances where a company runs 5+ VoIP calls -- in addition to data traffic -- over a 64k circuit with the line staying at 95-100% capacity 24x7. It's not easy, but it's doable. S

2 1

re: BST - BGP Scalable Transport
by Ron da Silva 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

Van/Cengiz/Kedar, Questions that missed the cutoff at the end of your preso: Most operators have some per-peer inbound policies. Since the next hop adjacency may move around due to chaning primaries, where do you configure the policy ? (all routers?) Also, some of those polices include modifying attributes before forwarded the update internally via iBGP. Where does the policy get implemented? (on the NA box?) -ron

2 1

RE: VoIP QOS best practices
by Charles Youse 11 Feb '03

11 Feb '03

But I could conceivably have 10+ voice channels over a T-1, I still don't quite understand how, without prioritizing voice traffic, the quality won't degrade... C. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:woody@pch.net] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:20 PM To: Charles Youse Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: VoIP QOS best practices > My main concern is that some of the sites that will be tied with > VoIP have only T-1 data connectivity, and I don't want a surge in > traffic to degrade the voice quality, or cause disconnections or > what-have-you. People are more accustomed to data networks going > down; voice networks going down will make people shout. It works fine on 64k connections, okay on many 9600bps connections. T1 is way more than is necessary. -Bill

5 4