- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by David Barak 01 Apr '05

01 Apr '05

--- Paul Vixie <vixie(a)vix.com> wrote: > > thegameiam(a)yahoo.com (David Barak) writes: > > > anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and > my wife complained to > > me yesterday that she has a very hard time > understanding their phone > > conversations anymore. She correctly identified > the change in quality as > > originating from the VoPI. > > as long as she's getting what she's paying for, or > getting the cost savings > that go along with the drop in quality, and is happy > with the savings, then > this isn't a bug. Well, here's the catch - it wasn't the VoIP subscriber who was complaining, it was the PSTN subscriber. The experience left her with the opinion that VoIP = bad quality voice. I suspect you'll see a lot of this... > > unfortunately a lot of companies who use voip or > other forms of "statistical > overcommit" want to pocket the savings and don't > want to disclose the service > limitations. that gives the whole field an > undeserved bad smell. agreed. > > > Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your > implication seems to be "damn > > the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for > optional voice (calls to > > Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to > the fire dept). > > i'm not especially tolerant of governments telling > me how safe i have to be. > if i want a 911-free phone in my house then the most > the gov't should be > allowed to require is that i put a warning label on > my front door and on > anthing inside my house that looks like a phone. occam's razor? We have government regulations regarding things which look like (and function similarly to) light switches, no? We have government regulations regarding the nature of water and sewer pipes, why not regulations regarding the nature of data pipes? > most american PBX's don't have 911 as a dialplan. > you have to dial 9-911. We work on different PBXes. The ones on which I work are specifically configured to respond to 911 OR 9-911 to avoid a problem. Would YOU want to have been the person who didn't enable one of those options, and thus delayed response time? < snip regarding corporate bad behavior in configuring PBXes> > geez, where's the FCC when you need 'em, huh? actually, yes - I see this as a public safety issue, not a freedom issue. It is in the public's interest for 911 to work the way we expect it to, everywhere. > i think the selective enforcement here is sickening, > and that if old money > telcos can't compete without asset protection, they > should file for chapter > 11 rather than muscling newcomer costs up by calling > these things "phone" and > then circling their wagons around the NANP. But VoIP companies calling their product a "communications service" and saying that they're exempt from 911 regulation, and at the same time beating up the ISPs for deprioritizing their traffic based on the same 911 access is completely fine, huh? Voice is an application, but a gov't regulated one. In this regard it is fundamentally different from email or ftp. > but > that's not going to happen, > so i predict that the internet will do what it > always does-- work around the > problem. so, domain names and personal computers > rather than "phone numbers" > and things-that-look-like-phones. <snip> > and when 20% or 50% of the homes in a region lack > this service because the > people who live in those homes don't want to pay a > POTS tithe, we'll see > some interesting legislation come down, and you can > quote me on that. Yes, I'm certain we will. The legislation will likely be due to a particularly bad fire during a power outage or some other event which makes national news. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com

5 5

seeking a contact for Cox Enterprises (AS 13433)
by Benjamin Cline 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

I am looking to get in touch someone from Cox Enterprises (AS 13433) who can assist with what appears to be a routing problem on their network. Attempts to resolve the issue through the usual/obvious channels have so far failed. benji

1 0

Re: Topicality Question: VoIP
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Personally, I believe that they are spot-on topic for the list, but I'm certain there's a possibility that I'm in the minority. - ferg -- "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk(a)cybernothing.org> wrote: Are the hundreds upon hundreds of recent threads about VoIP /really/ on-topic for the NANOG list? -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Intersting article on ISP issues regarding competitive VoIP services: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=71020 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

13 24

Re: Vonage Hits ISP Resistance
by Greg Boehnlein 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Brad Knowles wrote: [Deleted] > What I really think we need here are some "truth-in-advertising" > laws which are applied to oversubscription rates. That'd solve the > problem really quick. How about we regulat the Internet like the Electric Utility and charge per byte transferred? :) That would shut down Peer To Peer traffic rather quickly, and it would ensure that everyone pays a fair amount for what they use. I'm only half serious here.. However, I do agree that truth in advertising is a good thing. On a different tact, where I -THINK- the market will eventually end up is w/ different classes of BroadBand service, whereby QOS and priority will be given to those that wish to pay for it. The $14.95 services will be a best-effort, and the $59.95 services will have priority. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST

9 8

MD5 for TCP/BGP Sessions
by Doug Legge 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

NANOG, I'm currently writing a paper for submission, as part of a MSc in Data Communications, and would appreciate if anyone could update me as to the implementation of MD5 for TCP authentication in BGP. Following the alerts last year: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20040616-bgp.shtml http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA04-111A.html http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a00803be7 d9.shtml http://www.foundrynet.com/solutions/security/TCP_Vulnerability_v1_3.pdf http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/415294 http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-04-20 What has been the general effect in the ISP/Enterprise community following the warnings? - Have people applied MD5? - If not what other technologies were implemented (IPSec AH transport mode for BGP sessions/ACL/rate limiting etc)? - Has there been any performance impacts seen since implementation? - Has the support of the BGP environment been increased because of this implementation (What policies regards changing the MD5 keys were implemented)? - Was this seen as a valid fix or a knee-jerk reaction (Having re-read the exchanges on NANOG regards the actual mathematical probability of generating this attack, what did the ISP community actually do (compared to what the academic/vendor community were suggesting)? Whilst I've had some response from bgp-info and bgp-security, it's not really been sufficient to draw any real conclusions. From your knowledge and experience are you aware, either internally or with customers the take up of MD5 implementations and had anyone actually suffered an attack prior to implementation -------------------------------- Please do not supply confidential information or anything that would be commercially sensitive, if you want to contact me off-line or from a private account please do Yours Doug Legge MDC Student Kingston University London /UK

7 11

Yahoo Network Contact
by John Bittenbender 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Would someone from Yahoo please contact me that can assist in a reachability issue to several yahoo subdomains?. JB

1 0

potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by Paul Vixie 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

a couple of off-the-wall notes. i'm bouncing off of stephen sprunk here, but in fact these notes have very little to do with his excellent article: > Toll-quality voice requires ... ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS empire actually cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality voice is fine. (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the USA!) sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not telephony over ip, it's voice over ip), we're going to have to integrate it into our computers. ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for less than USD $300!") because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the POTS empire can use the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations (or local equivilent) to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making money from "voice". the solution of course is to use computers rather than "phones" and to use domain names rather than "phone numbers". "old money" has a way of flattening the decline of old technology... until the cliff, that is. > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter and high > coast-to-coast latency, ... just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do we mean when we talk about the "public internet"? my first thought was lisbon-to-sakhalin, rather than seattle-to-miami. given that the public internet isn't even centered in let alone predominated by north america any more, and that some of the best (and/or loudest) speakers at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) are from outside north america, it seems to me that the "reform party" should be thinking of a new name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over "nanog governance"... (i'm one of those who loves merit in their secretariat role but who thinks that issues of list/conference content/moderation, budgets, program committee membership, and overall policy should be handled representationally, like at ARIN.) (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing list, go find out, plz.) > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent QoS or within the same > general area of the country, you can afford a larger transmit buffer without > risking the "walkie talkie" effect. all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. that's a lot more than 125ms. > > I mean, where would you set it, and can you offset some of > > that with fragmentation and intervleaving? > > F&I is a technique for reducing jitter on slow, congested links like > the last mile to a customer. It's often combined with a priority > queue, since the latter is not enough on such links (but is on faster > ones). Neither has much to do with the (tiny) sizes of voice packets. somebody told me that they can get about 8 concurrent G.711 calls over an 11Mbit/sec 802.11 link, and maybe 9 if they use G.729. apparently the radio link arbitration on 802.11 is better than ALOHA but not as good as "thickwire", and the packets-per-second maximum is low-in-practice, and we'll only see full rate (11Mbits/sec, 54Mbits/sec, whatever) from single-flow-large-MTU. that's ok for me, it's still good enough for a horsecam and a barnphone. but it's something worth checking into for anyone who plans larger deployment.

3 2

Re: potpourri (Re: Clearwire May Block VoIP Competitors )
by David Barak 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

--- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> wrote: <snip> > > Toll-quality voice requires ... > > ...all kinds of things that nobody outside the POTS > empire actually > cares about. folks just want to talk. cell-quality > voice is fine. > (just ask anybody in panama who has relatives in the > USA!) anecdote: one of my good friends uses Vonage, and my wife complained to me yesterday that she has a very hard time understanding their phone conversations anymore. She correctly identified the change in quality as originating from the VoPI. > sadly, to get "voice over ip" (note, it's not > telephony over ip, it's > voice over ip), The difference between the two is readily apparent to businesses: VoIP::POTS as "ToIP"::PBX/Centrex >we're going to have to integrate it > into our computers. > ("dammit, i need a decent quality USB headset for > less than USD $300!") > because as long as something looks-like-a-phone, the > POTS empire can use > the NANP (or local equivilent) and 911 regulations > (or local equivilent) > to prevent newer more efficient carriers from making > money from "voice". Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but your implication seems to be "damn the 911, full steam ahead." That's great for optional voice (calls to Panama) but not so good for non-optional voice (to the fire dept). > > the solution of course is to use computers rather > than "phones" and to > use domain names rather than "phone numbers". fine by me - such a service would never be confused with POTS, and no one sensible would treat it as a reliable/robust service. > > ..., the public Internet has substantial jitter > and high > > coast-to-coast latency, ... > > just thinking out loud here, but which "coasts" do > we mean when we talk > about the "public internet"? my first thought was > lisbon-to-sakhalin, > rather than seattle-to-miami. > > given that the public internet isn't even centered > in let alone predominated > by north america any more, How do you measure this? According to Telegeography, London has been the city with the most international connections for about the past 5 or 6 years, but New York (& environs) still had the highest aggregate international bandwidth during that time. I would certainly say that North America is a disproportionate source and sink of traffic relative to population. > and that some of the best > (and/or loudest) speakers > at nanog (both on the mailing list and in person) > are from outside north > america, it seems to me that the "reform party" > should be thinking of a new > name. i'll happily turn ANOG.$CNO and/or > WORLDNOG.$CNO over to any elected > board who becomes merit's successor-in-interest over > "nanog governance"... Well, North America does have its own issues, and there should be a venue for that. (side note: I'm far more likely to have my employer send me to Seattle than to Tokyo...) <snip> > (if you didn't know about the nanog-futures@ mailing > list, go find out, plz.) > Thanks for the plug :) > > OTOH, if you're going across a network with decent > QoS or within the same > > general area of the country, you can afford a > larger transmit buffer without > > risking the "walkie talkie" effect. > > all it has to be is as good as a cell phone. Requirements differ. To paraphrase Randy, "I encourage my competitors to use this voice quality standard." David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

2 1

BGP routing policies in ISP networks
by Matthew Caesar 31 Mar '05

31 Mar '05

Hi NANOG, Jennifer Rexford and I have written an overview of how BGP routing policies are done in ISP networks. The goal was to write a kind of tutorial that students learning about BGP and people new to the field could use to better understand some of the issues involved in setting up a BGP network, peering with neighbors, etc. We aimed to provide a taxonomy of policies commonly used, the goals motivating them, and a high-level overview of how they are implemented at routers, and we tried to discuss some of the complex issues that can arise which make the job of a network operator so challenging. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mccaesar/papers/policies.pdf We'd really appreciate your comments on the work. We'd also enjoy learning about other types of policies that network operators use, or other issues you've run into when implementing policies in your networks. Thanks, Matt

1 0