RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
After working at a CLEC for a while, I must say that I know of very few PBXs that can do this, that the avg customer can afford.. Of course the BIG Lucent Definity series, maybe a few of it's peers.. But the Lucent/AT&T partner/Magix systems, I am nearly positive(99.9%) they can't.. And forget about those 4 line toshiba's. Anyway that is not a discussion for this list... Jim >-Original Message- >From: Mark Segal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:04 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5 > > > >> Whenever the North American Numbering Planning Administration >> releases a new toll-free prefix (e.g. 1-800, 1-888, 1-877, >> 1-866) there is always a lengthy delay for individuals >> operating some telephone switches to update their routing >> tables. Its common to be in hotels, and find the hotel PBX >> doesn't recognize a recent toll-free prefix. > >Yes.. But most people don't run translations for all NPA-NXXs >on their 4 >line PBX > >Regards, >Mark > >-- >Mark Segal >Director, Data Services >Futureway Communications Inc. >Tel: (905)326-1570 > > >> >> So to "fix" this problem, why don't we move all 9-1-1 numbers >> to the new toll-free prefix, which will break stuff for >> people who don't update their PBX's promptly. When they find >> out they can't report a fire in the hotel because their PBX >> is blocking the new prefix, then they'll fix the PBX. >> >> Let's get real, no one is going to break any "critical" >> resource just for the purpose of making people fix their systems. >> >> >> Rob's bogon lists are good, but unless you have the processes >> in place to keep it update to date (or hire an consulting >> firm to do it for you), its about as useful as putting a list >> of "invalid" phone numbers in your PBX. The lists change all >> the time, and unless you are a full-time LERG expert, it will >> probably get quickly out of date. >> >> Of course, we can always use LDAP to keep all the PBX's updated. >> >
RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Mark Segal wrote: > Yes.. But most people don't run translations for all NPA-NXXs on their 4 > line PBX And your misconfigured PBX won't likely stop me from calling you...just you from calling me. Bad bogon filters stop or prevent traffic in both directions. If anyone has a better idea for shifting the burden to and thus creating motivation for those with broken filters to fix them now, by all means, share your idea. If you don't have a better idea yet, go ask ARIN for some space. They have lots of 69/8 left. Maybe when you're in the club, you'll be more motivated to think of ways to quickly encourage others to fix their networks. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
> Whenever the North American Numbering Planning Administration > releases a new toll-free prefix (e.g. 1-800, 1-888, 1-877, > 1-866) there is always a lengthy delay for individuals > operating some telephone switches to update their routing > tables. Its common to be in hotels, and find the hotel PBX > doesn't recognize a recent toll-free prefix. Yes.. But most people don't run translations for all NPA-NXXs on their 4 line PBX Regards, Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data Services Futureway Communications Inc. Tel: (905)326-1570 > > So to "fix" this problem, why don't we move all 9-1-1 numbers > to the new toll-free prefix, which will break stuff for > people who don't update their PBX's promptly. When they find > out they can't report a fire in the hotel because their PBX > is blocking the new prefix, then they'll fix the PBX. > > Let's get real, no one is going to break any "critical" > resource just for the purpose of making people fix their systems. > > > Rob's bogon lists are good, but unless you have the processes > in place to keep it update to date (or hire an consulting > firm to do it for you), its about as useful as putting a list > of "invalid" phone numbers in your PBX. The lists change all > the time, and unless you are a full-time LERG expert, it will > probably get quickly out of date. > > Of course, we can always use LDAP to keep all the PBX's updated. >
Re: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
>Rob's bogon lists are good, but unless you have the processes in place to >keep it update to date (or hire an consulting firm to do it for you), its >about as useful as putting a list of "invalid" phone numbers in your PBX. >The lists change all the time, and unless you are a full-time LERG expert, >it will probably get quickly out of date. >Of course, we can always use LDAP to keep all the PBX's updated. Well, we use DNS to keep all of our resolvers updated with the latest IP address changes and it works so well that most people never even think about what is happening under the hood unless they are renumbering. Compare this to what happens when the root hints file changes. In that case you need processes and people or, more likely, you wait until something breaks and then hire a consultant who updates your root hints file for a nice fee. This is not the model I would use to solve the bogon problem. --Michael Dillon
RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Sean Donelan > Sent: March 10, 2003 7:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5 > > > > Whenever the North American Numbering Planning Administration > releases a new toll-free prefix (e.g. 1-800, 1-888, 1-877, > 1-866) there is always a lengthy delay for individuals > operating some telephone switches to update their routing > tables. Its common to be in hotels, and find the hotel PBX > doesn't recognize a recent toll-free prefix. > > So to "fix" this problem, why don't we move all 9-1-1 numbers > to the new toll-free prefix, which will break stuff for > people who don't update their PBX's promptly. When they find > out they can't report a fire in the hotel because their PBX > is blocking the new prefix, then they'll fix the PBX. You're comparing two different situations, though: In your case, the people in the hotel that is doing the blocking will be the ones experiencing the problems. They notice that they can't reach 1-8xx-xxx-, so they call up the hotel management and yell. Hotel management calls the person in charge of their PBX, and the problem would be fixed. I could be wrong (hey, I'm in the DNS business, not the PSTN), but I can't imagine the 1-8xx number calling the hotel and getting the impression that the 1-8xx number's provider has problems... In the 69.0.0.0/8 case, though, the problem is bidirectional. You have people whose ISP/firewall/etc blocks access to 69.0.0.0/8 - presumably, if they can't reach some box on 69.0.0.0, they'll yell at their ISP (and, most likely, at the operator of the thing they're trying to reach, too, but said operator can tell them to yell at their ISP). But, you also have people on 69.0.0.0 who aren't able to reach other sites due to filtering on the other end, and those people are likely to yell at their ISP and blame their ISP for something the ISP can't fix. That second situation, I think, is the situation that this thread is about, and your hotel analogy doesn't address that. With the hotel analogy, basically, the people affected are the ones who have the relationship with the operator of the broken piece of hardware, not the ones with the 1-8xx number (though, if you want to be picky, you could argue they might lose a bit of business to this). With the 69.x.x.x situation, the people affected are the ones with the 69 IP space, and they don't have a relationship with whoever has the misconfigured hardware. Maybe moving the GTLD servers would be overkill... But certainly, the idea of asking Google or Yahoo to move seems like a good one. If people can't reach Google or Yahoo, they'll make their ISP look into the issue, and fix their filters. A random comment now I have been dragged into this thread: this issue is not new with 69.0.0.0/8. When we first got a block from 66.* from an ISP about two years ago, we had problems too with various people (mostly end users, though, I think) firewalling 66.*, and yet ARIN had been assigning 66.* blocks for probably a year or so before we got that IP space. Fortunately for us, though, most problems seemed to be people who wanted to reach us not being able to, and not us not being able to reach sites we wanted to talk to. Still, I suspect the Linux Firewall HOWTO was in large part responsible for the problems we had... Vivien -- Vivien M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
