RE: Vonage SUED over not clearly informing customers re 911 service lacking
Re: Your Call Will Go To A General Access Line at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). This is different from the 911 Emergency Response Center where traditional 911 calls go. In talking with my local PSAP about VoIP services and this particular issue, they (PSAPs collectively) are fairly displeased with Vonage-like services and how it introduces delay into their process which is all about time sensitive information. With the advances in E911, cell phone location services, etc. which all increased the speed of identifying caller location and identity, residential VoIP services have set things back a fair amount. The General Access line that Vonage's text mentions means different things to different PSAPs and some (mine anyway) prioritize calls coming in on this line to the lowest queue and with some areas it may not even be answered outside of core operating hours or during high-call periods. I'm not saying (nor do I hope the PSAPs are either) that Vonage should cease and desist service because of the 911 issues, rather greater partnership needs to be initiated to insure that VoIP service and POTS have the same priority for 911 and that all possible information is transmitted in a timely manner for 911 dispatchers to get the right services to you as fast as possible. I read on a Vonage customer forum about testing your 911 service with them, I don't know that I'd advocate that as the PSAPs will likely be ticked. But again, it emphasizes a point about collaboration between Vonage and the areas it supports to insure customer safety. If you are a Vonage customer, I'd urge you to verify your 911 info with them. Sure you'll hopefully never need the service, but if your house is on fire or your child is choking or whatever the unfortunate event is, will you really be able to give them your full address and call-back number in a time of crisis? I hope so... Sorry about the soapbox, I have strong feelings on this one... - Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paid-on-call firefighter and network guy
RE: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP
Do you also offer premium 80 traffic? Or guaranteed delivery of UDP? Unbundled services will give the best price, and good service. Maybe we won't get the service anytime soon, but 2 out of the magical 3 isn't bad. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adi Linden Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 8:46 AM To: Bill Nash Cc: Robert Blayzor; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP If VOIP doesn't run on your network because you've oversold your capacity, no amount of QoS is going to put the quality back into your service. People will find better ISPs. If you deliberately set QoS to favor your services over a competitor, whom your customers are also paying for service, you'll be staring down prosecutors, at some point. It's anti-competitive behavior, as you're taking deliberate actions to degrade the service of a competitor, simply because you can. Let's say I sell a premium VoIP offering for an additional fee on my network. I apply QoS to deliver my VoIP offering to my customers but as a result all other VoIP service is literally useless during heavy use times you'd consider this anti-competitive behavior? Adi
Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
So...how much of the revenue stream is built around the actual facilities (i.e. copper, fiber, etc) ownership monopoly? Shouldn't senior staff recognize the short-sightedness of building one revenue stream from two distinct sources: one content delivery and one plant ownership? Sell access first for a profit and then add ala carte services for a profit, don't mix them. Brad Swanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert M. Enger Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:57 PM To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions... The subject is of most concern at the edge. There are multiple long-haul providers, but often the consumer has only one option for multi-megabit connectivity. The entity currently enjoying the edge monopoly attempts to create vertical service alignment, to maximize profit. They DON'T want to provide packet data service, they want to provide ALL services (control content, filter, etc). This is not a technical matter, it's senior staff maximizing rate of return. To diverge from VoIP, an interesting situation will present itself in the future. Verizon is installing FTTH. Data offerings in their present service area are: 5, 15, and 30Mbps downstream. http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp These speeds would support broadcast quality video delivery (even HD quality) if properly implemented. As hot a topic as voice is, the total money involved is decreasing. Video services, however, still represent a huge revenue stream. Will Verizon be a pure pipe provider? Or, will they attempt to control services? It would be nice to see Comcast get some meaningful competition. Till now, they could never find the money to upgrade or maintain their RF plant, but they had money available to pursue acquisition of Disney... As troublesome as VoIP may (appear) to be, imagine video. Very high duty-cycle, multi-megabit streams. 36ccs, so to speak. But, content creators could sell directly to end users. Potentially, no cable company, no TV networks. Perhaps even the studio structure will collapse. A lot depends on how well the FTTH providers, and their long-haul backbone partners do their job. Whether they embrace disruptive change, or resist it as an annoyance to their routine.
RE: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July
Invented is irrelevant. Effective mgmt is what counts. Having said that, things seem to work fine as is, and in the end if we ask large (aka fortune 100) multi-internationals if the ITU (UN) should try and manage, and glean off another nickel or two, the inet...hmmm...answer? No way, money talks... Thanks, Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 5:45 AM To: William Warren Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:00:22PM -0500, William Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 45 lines which said: If the UN wants control of the INET WE invented. Who is WE? ICANN? The US governement?
Large Enterprise IP mgmt
The archives didn't show a hit for IP address management when it comes to a large MS AD shop. We went from NetID to home-grown scripts... Men and Mice have given some presentations on their tool. Any others out there that do not force a switch to some other vendor's DNS/DHCP servers? Just looking to manage the MS AD... Thanks, Brad
RE: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses
Interesting flow...who then enforces ITU rules? With what binding authority? Better yet, let the free market run the business. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:23 AM To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Vince Hoffman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions of recent ITU Comments on the Management of IP Addresses Of course, then, the developing countries (and, more importantly, the countries with large viral or spammer populations) are then faced with the question of whether anyone will route their prefixes. Won't that make the ITU happy. Owen --On Tuesday, November 23, 2004 2:16 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22-nov-04, at 21:16, Vince Hoffman wrote: This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address space distribution process, based solely on national authorities. This is not exactly what it says in http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/tsb-director/itut-wsis/files/zhao-netgov01.p df A quote: The early allocation of IPv4 addresses resulted in geographic imbalances and an excessive possession of the address space by early adopters. This situation was recognized and addressed by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). However, despite their best efforts, and even though a very large portion of the IPv4 space has not been assigned, some believe that there is a shortage of IPv4 addresses and voice concerns regarding the principles and managements of the current system. Some developing countries have raised issues regarding IP address allocation. It is important to ensure that similar concerns do not arise with respect to IPv6. I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries, that is, assigning a block to a country at no cost, and letting the country itself manage this kind of address in IPv6. By assigning addresses to countries, we will enable any particular user to choose their preferred source of addresses: either the countryassigned ones or the region/international-assigned ones. -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. - Simon J. Lyall. Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to. We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918 space destined for our network coming from one of our normally respectable Tier 1 ISP's (three letter acronym, starts with 'M', ends with 'CI'). This is particularly irritating since we pay for burstable service; nice that we are paying for illegitimate traffic to come down our pipes. Their answer to this issue was: our routers can't handle the additional load that filtering 1918 traffic would cause. That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way possible. With that it our (the global collective, not just my company) responsibility to prevent RFC 1918 traffic from entering our exiting our border; makes for an interesting definition of private address space.
