- Test - lists.nanog.org

Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Steven M. Bellovin 17 Feb '05

17 Feb '05

http://advancedippipeline.com/60400413 The FCC is investigating -- it's not even clear if it's illegal to do that. --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

19 22

Re: bad Vonage connection, was Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

In an update yesterday on advancedIPpipeline, Vonage said that the incident "... involved multiple Vonage customers whose service was being affected by a single provider." http://www.advancedippipeline.com/news/60400945 - ferg -- John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >What caused that issue was file transfers and other bursty traffic >overwhelming queues, resulting in vonage traffic being stomped. My router is a BSD/OS box and I see no evidence that it's losing packets. Keep in mind that the trouble was on inbound traffic, and my internal network, a 100Mb switched ethernet, is a lot faster than my T1, so it's hard to see how there'd be any queueing under any circumstances. I did traceroutes, looks like it was in either Sprint-land or the NSP to NSP gateway. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Jason L. Schwab 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Hi; I unplugged and reset my vonage Motorola MTA device, and it did tftp to home to get its configs. -Jason -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:14 PM To: 'Jay Hennigan' Cc: Eric Gauthier; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking > -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:jay@west.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:10 PM > To: Hannigan, Martin > Cc: Eric Gauthier; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > > Something else to consider. We block TFTP at our border for > > > security reasons > > > and we've found that this prevents Vonage from working. > > > Would this mean that > > > LEC's can't block TFTP? > > > > > > Was that a device trying to phone home and get it's configs? > > Cisco, Nortel, etc. phone home and get configs via tftp. > > > > Vonage doesn't need to phone home for config. The device is > > programmed (router) and it registers with the call manager. > > If you analyze the transactions it's about 89% SIP and 11% SDP. > > Vonage devices initiate an outbound TFTP connection back to Vonage to > snarf their configs on initial connection and also > (presumably) on reboot. I tested the reboot. I didn't see it. I agree in general and think that providers shouldn't block tftp, IMHO.

7 7

Cisco 3640 Bootrom
by Kim Onnel 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

I have a 3640 that while booting up gives the errors below at the console, Console Errors: _____________ C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled unknown flash deþ System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFT WARE (fc2) Copyright (c) 1994-1996 by cisco Systems, Inc. C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled unknown flash device - mandev code = 0xffff cannot read flash info getdevnum warning: device "flash" has size of zero unknown flash device - mandev code = 0xffff cannot read flash info getdevnum warning: device "flash" has size of zero open: read error...requested 0x4 bytes, got 0x0 trouble reading device magic number boot: cannot open "flash:" an alternate boot helper program is not specified (monitor variable "BOOTLDR" is not set) and unable to determine first file in bootflash loadprog: error - on file open boot: cannot load "tftp:c3640-js-mz.122-15.T5.bin 40.40.40.2" System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFT WARE (fc2) Copyright (c) 1994-1996 by cisco Systems, Inc. C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled I was adviced to upgrade bootrom, because the bootrom doesnt recognize the flash sticks, how do you guys check that this bootrom will work with this flash stick ? Regards

2 1

RE: bad Vonage connection, was Vonage complains about VoIP-blocki ng
by Hannigan, Martin 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: John R Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:55 AM > To: Hannigan, Martin > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: RE: bad Vonage connection, was Vonage complains about > VoIP-blocking > > > > Odd regarding the Vonage connection. Their sitting on UU > from where I > > can see and I have excellent transit to them from Comcast. > > I'm on Sprint, and the service was fine for a year and a > half. In recent > months it deteriorated to the point where more often than not > I couldn't > understand the other party at all, even though they always > said they could > hear me fine. Since my connection is symmetrical (t1, not > dsl or cable) > and my stats always say I have spare inbound capacity, I'm > sure it's not > at my end. > > > I've tested Vonage, only because I had it, with the Semena > NE2000 Network > > Test Device and introduced multiple error, path, and > latency issues and it > > stood up very well. At one point, I jacked up the latency > to 4000ms and I > > was still able to place, communicate, and drop calls > effectively. I was > > very surprised at how it handled that large introduced latency. > > It wasn't latency, it was jitter and mostly dropouts. I > think they have > vast amounts of buffering so latency is tolerable if you can stand the > talking to the moon effect. I have not tested jitter, but I will now. I had some dropouts when one of my machines was "being bad", and while it didn't usually disco, it did drop call content. I was surprised it hung on to the call for as long as it did. Longest I can attest to is about 25 seconds. I haven't gotten around to figuring out why it held the session at all. > > > I don't know about Vonage support. Never tried it. > > That's the problem. It no longer exists. E-mail is auto-acked and > ignored, phone calls go through the usual voice jail tree > until you get to > the point when it would queue me for a person, where I always > got a busy > signal. > > Calling the number to cancel was no problem getting through, > but by then > it was too late, I'd already ported the number to Lingo who > is slightly > cheaper and has a much larger local calling area, roughly Honolulu to > Helsinki. Have you experienced any blocking on Vonage? -M<

2 1

RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
by Erik Amundson 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

I just get sick of providers blocking traffic...their job is to PASS TRAFFIC. There must be a better solution, but laziness is getting the better of us all, as usual. We've had so many problems with "IP Providers" blocking various "IP PROTOCOLS" that we've just ended up forcing all of our users to use VPN tunnels for everything...except when the providers block that!!! Then we're just screwed. Anyways, just my two cents... Please don't flame me, I'm just a lowly network guy....:) - Erik -----Original Message----- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:00 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Although RFC2476 was published in December 1998, its amazing how few mail providers support the Message Submission protocol for e-mail on Port 587. Even odder, some mail providers use other ports such as 26 or 2525, but not the RFC recommended Port 587 for remote authenticated mail access for users. Large mail providers like AOL, GMAIL and Yahoo support authenticated mail on port 587; and some also support Port 465 for legacy SMTP/SSL. But a lot of universities and smaller mail providers don't. They still use SMTP Port 25 for roaming users. With AT&T, Earthlink, COX, Netzero and other ISPs filtering port 25 for years, I would have thought most mail providers would have started supporting Port 587 by now. What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587? What can be done to encourage the mail client software programers (i.e. Outlook, Eudora, etc) to make Port 587 the default (or at least the first try) and let the user change it back to port 25 (or automatically fallback) if they are still using a legacy mail server. Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say click here for Port 587 during the Windows installer, its too complicated).

3 2

RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Hannigan, Martin 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Stephen Sprunk > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:08 PM > To: Bruce Campbell > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > Subject: Re: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking > > > > Thus spake Bruce Campbell" <bc-nanog(a)vicious.dropbear.id.au> > > Introducing new devices that are intended to trust that > big, bad, easily > > spoofable internet using non-secured protocols such as tftp > in order to > > get their configuration from a non-local server shows a > degree of trust > > not seen since the Famous Five, the BabySitters Club and > pre '96 O'Reilly > > books on writing internet protocols. > > Unfortunately, TFTP is the only protocol that many phone vendors > implement -- and VoIP operators aren't happy about it. Some > vendors have > started implementing HTTP(S), but it's far from common at this point. Wouldn't there be a fee to utilize https? -M<

5 5

Cox.net
by Micah McNelly 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

Can someone from cox operations PLEASE contact me asap. Thanks, /m

1 0

Re: Verizon wins MCI
by gmjones＠mitre.org 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

----- Original Message ----- From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> Date: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:22 pm Subject: Re: Verizon wins MCI > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. > > What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :) > > > Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B. > > I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how > large > Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, > MFS, > WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well? And what's left of ANS (the backbone back in the day), and the CompuServe Network. The chain of acquisitions of good companies prior to the WCOM meltdown was stunning. I was always fond of CompUUWorldCoMCI.net ---George Jones (CompuServe Network alumni)

1 0

White House may make NSA the 'traffic cop' over U.S. computer networks
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 16 Feb '05

16 Feb '05

...and following up on my last post, it would appear that the U.S. gummint is at least taking some action wrt U.S. gummint networks: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10494?ref=rss Not leaping to any conclusions here, but it would illustrate that, at the very least, someone has concluded that the info- security posture needs to be approached a bit more seriously. $.03, - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

6 5