- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

> -----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.

5 4

RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Eric Gauthier > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:45 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:53:59AM -0600, Adi Linden wrote: > > >> How is this any different then blocking port 25 or > managing the bandwidth > > >> certain applications use. > > 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. -M<

4 3

Verizon wins MCI
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too. Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays < 7B. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/2005021 4/ts_washpost/a22085_2005feb13 -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com

10 14

RE: Verizon wins MCI
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Christopher L. Morrow > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:57 PM > To: Rich Kulawiec > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Verizon wins MCI > > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 11:38:10PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: > > > But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? > > > > <chuckle> Well, by one metric, they're #1: > > > > Rank ISP Number of > currently-listed spam issues > > --- --- -------------------------------------- > > 1 mci.com 193 > > 2 kornet.net 164 > > 3 sbc.com 119 > > 4 comcast.net 100 > > 5 xo.com 78 > > 6 above.net 75 > > 7 crc.net.cn 68 > > 8 verizon.net 67 > > 9 level3.net 64 > > 10 interbusiness.it 56 > > > > > > (from the Spamhaus top ten list >(http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics.lasso)) >we aim to please? or was there some hidden meaning to your email/troll? I think he was acknowledging that SPAM control falls in the front office these days and most of us have little control over revenue decisions. SPAM is traffic. That's all it ever will be. [No, I hate spam. I'm a realist ] -M<

1 0

RE: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > John Fraizer > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:31 PM > To: Samantha Fetter > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking > > > > > > Samantha Fetter wrote: > > Hi, just wanted to let you know that a friend recently got > Vonage, and > > they had to go through a special process to get 911 > properly associated > > with her address so that it would work right. I'm guessing > that means > > they have "REAL 911 access"? I'm not familiar with that > all, so pardon > > my lack of technical terms : > > > > Cheers, > > Samantha > > If they had to go through a "special" process, then no. That would > indicate that Vonage still doesn't have PS/ALI, at least in > your friends > market. > > That "special" process is Vonage determining the "default" > PSAP in your > area and routing your 911 call to the 7-digit number for that PSAP. > With PS/ALI, Vonage wouldn't be doing the routing. They > would hand the > call off to the 911 Selective Router which would THEN hand > the call off > to the appropriate PSAP based on a DIG to get your ALI information. And with the current state of affairs, unless the head end can determine proper call centers across boundaries (can't), it probably never will. > > For those of you unfamiliar with how E911 works, and specifically, > PS/ALI, take a look at: > http://www.xo.com/products/smallgrowing/voice/local/psali/ > > Or... Simply google for "PS/ALI". That's a TDM product. http://www.e911institute.org/Roundtable%20and%20Tours/June%2024,%202004/VoIP %20E911%20Issues.pdf Page 9 offers a better description of the current E911 issues. It's a software problem. All Vonage does is map your 911 call at the PSAP to your local EMS. This is a 6/24 doc. It's slightly outdated. -M< > > John >

1 0

Re: Vonage complains about VoIP-blocking
by John Fraizer 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

Samantha Fetter wrote: > Hi, just wanted to let you know that a friend recently got Vonage, and > they had to go through a special process to get 911 properly associated > with her address so that it would work right. I'm guessing that means > they have "REAL 911 access"? I'm not familiar with that all, so pardon > my lack of technical terms : > > Cheers, > Samantha If they had to go through a "special" process, then no. That would indicate that Vonage still doesn't have PS/ALI, at least in your friends market. That "special" process is Vonage determining the "default" PSAP in your area and routing your 911 call to the 7-digit number for that PSAP. With PS/ALI, Vonage wouldn't be doing the routing. They would hand the call off to the 911 Selective Router which would THEN hand the call off to the appropriate PSAP based on a DIG to get your ALI information. For those of you unfamiliar with how E911 works, and specifically, PS/ALI, take a look at: http://www.xo.com/products/smallgrowing/voice/local/psali/ Or... Simply google for "PS/ALI". John

1 0

Old McDonald Had a Pharm?!
by Daniel Golding 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

There have been a couple recent articles about a phenomenon allegedly known as "pharming", which people are supposedly worried about. This includes some combination of DNS cache poisoning and/or worm-powered URL rewriting. This may also be a form of "fear-driven marketing" by companies inventing solutions to "fix" the problem which may not exist. (Mac Anti-virus software, anyone? ;) Is anyone aware of actual "pharming" in the wild? Please reply off-list and I will summarize answers to the list. Thanks, -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group

2 1

Phishing Name Server?
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

The Internet Storm Center [http://isc.sans.org/diary.php] is reporting that: "The DNS server 'NS1.SPX2K.com' currently hosts the following domains CITIFINANCUPDATE.com, SAFE-KEYNET.com, WAMU4U.com, WAMUCORP.com which appear to be phishing related. The use of actual 'valid' domains like this opens up the possibility that they are used with SSL certificates. The whois info for these domains appears to be fake." Does anyone have any further information into this? - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

2 1

RE: Verizon wins MCI
by Chad Skidmore 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org] > Posted At: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:38 PM > Posted To: NANOG > Conversation: Verizon wins MCI > Subject: Re: Verizon wins MCI > > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > > > 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? > > But does anyone really know how big WorldCon is/was? First > thing Verizon will have to do is fire the entire billing > department and replace them with people/systems that can > generate correct bills and send them to the correct customers. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > Jon Lewis | I route > Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public > key_________ > > Then the question is can Verizon actually generate an accurate and readable bill. :) Based on our experience it will just be inaccurate and unreadable in new and unusual ways. Chad - ---------------------------- Chad E Skidmore One Eighty Networks, Inc. http://www.go180.net 509-688-8180 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQhIkTk2RUJ5udBnvEQIIWQCdHIcqdckE2jSdZhnXrYfxfb+F2z4AnA2G 7bnkB7BcMzzUbvWFyI8Oc+2f =1Nhl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs?
by Chad Skidmore 15 Feb '05

15 Feb '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Be aware that on most types of fiber the loss in the 1400nm range is so high (due to H2O in the glass) that it is unusable. Some manufacturers are now using a process that extracts all, or nearly all, of the H2O out of the glass to make that range useable. OFS Allwave claims to be doing that. Regards, Chad - ---------------------------- Chad E Skidmore One Eighty Networks, Inc. http://www.go180.net 509-688-8180 > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Thomas [mailto:athomas@deltacable.com] > Posted At: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:53 AM > Posted To: NANOG > Conversation: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs? > Subject: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs? > > > > Hi List, > > Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 > lambda mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single > fibre (5 data channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are > dark and I was wondering if there are any 3rd party vendors > out there that have produced Cisco compatible GBICs for these > wavelengths. I have looked around and seen Finisar does make > Cisco GBICs, but not in the 1430/1450 lambdas. > > Any help appreciated > > Aaron > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQhIj0U2RUJ5udBnvEQJhFgCeM60pB1kU+gx++3GSxV31kmUUjaYAnjil NC9PdWqfsCva35VMghMVOPiw =kRiR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0