Robert, thanks for the links. Very educational. Indeed is the ITU
definition:
IP telephony is used as a generic term for the transmission of
voice using IP technology. IP telephony can be broadly classified as
configurations using closed-bandwidth IP networks or IP networks
with
On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 05:23 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
[*] The critical aspect is that the DTD *must* be kept simple. If the
DTD
evolves into a Turing machine with Perl-like syntax we can just
acknowledge that it's time to shut down the IETF and go home. I cling
to
the forlorn
http://simonwoodside.com/projects/ict/voip_paradox.html
The Voice over IP paradox
Simon Woodside
*Abstract*
Voice over IP is paradoxically both internet and telephony at the same
time. This article presents the paradox, and associated arguments.
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 05:21 AM, grenville armitage wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
[..]
Voice over IP is paradoxically both internet and telephony at the same
time. This article presents the paradox, and associated arguments.
Your paradox seems artificial. IP Telephony is both
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 02:22 PM, Scott Bradner wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not. I live in Ontario Canada and in the recent
blackout, my phone kept working.
i.e., you did not have a ISDN or wireless phone
Yes we still have an old-fashioned no frills basic telephone in the
house. I also
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 06:24 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Simon;
Voice over IP is paradoxically both internet and telephony at the same
time. This article presents the paradox, and associated arguments.
There is no paradox. The internet carries information.
You should, at least,
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 09:11 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Last IETF in Minneapolis, I couldn't call my home.
Why? new exchange in Ottawa. 715. Minneapolis thinks that is an area
code... Wisconsin. No operator could understand this concept or
problem, and
even 1800 calling card
On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 01:25 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On woensdag, aug 27, 2003, at 18:48 Europe/Amsterdam, Tony Hain wrote:
but if that only applied to apps using a new stabilization layer,
there wouldn't be as much complaint because those would see a clear
benefit.
So when
The difference between internet telephony and voice chat.
This is fairly critical actually. It doesn't matter if you're talking
about H323 or SIP although obviously there is a bias in each one
towards one or the other. The commonly used VoIP name does NOT do
enough to differentiate, we need to
Hi,
The MANET group is not chartered to look at fixed wireless mesh
topologies. But the IEEE 802.16 group is now looking at this explicitly:
http://www.ieee802.org/16/meetings/mtg25/agenda.html Mesh Ad Hoc
Committee
http://www.ieee802.org/16/meetings/mtg25/docs.html Mesh Ad Hoc
On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 06:02 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, the IETF doesn't have any activities looking
at the fixed mesh case.
If you were to look into fixed meshes, how would you approach the
problem definition and what tools would you use
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:40 PM, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Obviously having wireless mesh nodes route IP would be much too
simple.
That statement is not obvious to me, except in standards committee
turf war terms. My intuition does suggest that none of RIP, IGRP,
EGP, BGP, HELO, or any
Well that is their domain after all. What do you expect them to do
;-)
simon
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 06:17 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I look forward to seeing the IEEE reinvent the network layer and put
it _below_ the link layer. This should be fun.
--
simonwoodside.com --
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 05:26 AM, Zefram wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
we must walk down to the
5th definition before we come to the one that is relevant. [2]
1. end -- (either extremity of something that has length; the end of
the pier; she knotted
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 01:54 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
I expect we could safely say that TCP/IP is an End-to-End protocol
pair, and
though it is a critical part of the Internet, it is not The Internet.
It isn't? Then what is the internet ?
There are at least two other network arguments
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 06:11 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On woensdag, jul 2, 2003, at 23:43 Europe/Amsterdam, S Woodside wrote:
I think there's a problem with the name end-to-end. End is a word
with a lot of definitions: for example wordnet [1] lists 14 senses
for the noun end
Hi,
End is an overloaded word. Overloaded words are great for politicians
and poets because they can means so many different things. Some
overloaded words (with many definitions) are spring (13), start (21),
home (19), box (13), point (37), sign (18), hard (21), ... [0]
I think there's a
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/001828.html
[Microsoft's Jawad Khaki (Corporate Vice President, Windows Networking
and Communications Technologies, Microsoft Corporation) ]
One of his remarks: What I call the evil NATs are stifling the
ability for people to get connected. (Interestingly,
On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 08:17 PM, David Morris wrote:
Based on policies that reject inbound
connections to all computers except those carefully hardended and
sequestered an their own 'DMZ' will dramatically reduce the potential
of
compromize from many risky applications ranging from
Begin forwarded message:
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Jun 19, 2003 8:43:18 PM America/Montreal
To: S Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: myth of the great transition
OK, so let's say I'm the author of a voice over IP application on a
platform
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 07:48 AM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
That group has no reason to deploy any new technology - what they have
already works fine for them. So if there is a very large population of
N-U,
especially if they are a big enough group to be a majority of the
Internet
user base,
On Friday, June 20, 2003, at 02:48 PM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 02:16 PM 6/20/2003, you wrote:
A lot of these people would like to be voice users, which you grouped
as NAPT Avoiders. They might use v6, if there were a dead-easy box
that would make it work with v6, and the voice apps upgraded to
Exactly. A NAPT (not a NA(!P)T ..) is in fact a perfectly good
firewall* for the home user. So all this argumentation that a NAPT is
not a firewall is bunk.
* where firewall = a device that protect my internal net from external
threats
simon
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:46 AM,
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage. It's implementing a very simple policy, protect me from the
outside world.
simon
On
since usually you mean NAPT. Realistically speaking, almost every NAT
that's out there in the real world is actually a NAPT. In fact I think
that NAT is so rare that it really should be called NA(!P)T to be
completely clear that there is no port translation going on.
simon
--
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this just security through obscurity, or something better?
Security through obscurity. See Bellovin's paper on enumerating
through a NAT.
http://www.research.att.com/~smb/papers/fnat.pdf
This paper has nothing to do with
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 01:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage.
only if the policy that the
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
Keith, I don't get this argument. A NAPT is a firewall by your own
definition I believe the primary purpose of firewalls should be to
protect the network, not the hosts, from abusive or unauthorized
usage. It's implementing a very
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 05:59 PM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: S Woodside [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does that mean that a NAT is a workable firewall but introduces
undesirable side effects? Is it (or could it be) possible to make an
equally workable firewall, at a low price, that doesn't
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 12:59 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Not at all.
If you want to address denial of service issues you need protocol
enforcement points.
This sounds like you are equating a NAT box with a firewall, which
seems to be common.
I would like to know:
- Is a NAT box
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 12:17 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
* Create a document-based thread rather than a WG-based or
* mailing-list-based thread. Patches could also be posted and
revision
* history (changes between revisions) would be easier to keep track
of.
* People who have negative
Once you have
decided to have a firewall in place (which you may think is evil, but
I consider pretty much a necessary evil)
If by firewall, you mean a box that can perform policy enforcement
then I don't think that many people in the IETF would think that's an
evil thing. The problem is more
On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:05 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
small enterprise and SOHO multihoming may turn out to be one of the
driving applications for IPv6. If we get our act sufficiently
together...
Absolutely. This and the peer2peer advantages sound to me like the most
obvious drivers
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 03:39 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
I think it would be more accurate to say that a NAT contravenes
the basic Internet prnciple of universal connectivity.
expecting the network
to isolate insecure hosts from untrustworthy attackers, or more
generally, to enforce policy
On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Tomson Eric ((Yahoo.fr))
wrote:
Now, the fact that masking the internal addresses to the external
world - so that internal hosts can initiate traffic to the outside,
but no
external host can initiate traffic to the inside - brings some basic
security,
I wonder if NAT is to ietf discussions as Nazis was
to Usenet discussions.
You mean NATzis?
simon
^_^
--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
It might be interesting to have a facility where comments can be
attached to I-Ds (like in bug tracking systems / bugzilla).
simon
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 02:01 PM, David Morris wrote:
Junk email on the other hand has an extremely low cost of transmission
in
the current economic model.
There is a difference between the people selling the product, and the
people sending the spam. Usually not the same people. The
On Wednesday, May 28, 2003, at 01:42 PM, David Morris wrote:
In the USA today, it costs $.37 to send a physical mail. I don't think
it
unreasonable for someone sending me mail to pay a similar fee and
conversely for me to pay such a fee for each of my posts to the IETF
list,
even though I
On Tuesday, May 27, 2003, at 08:51 PM, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
Which is precisely why I say that the solution to spam is to charge for
email. It avoids the whole question of defining what is and is not
spam.
More specifically, change the email protocol so that when email
arrives from
an entity
On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 05:30 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If
another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a
multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants
to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do?
Send
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 06:03 PM, John Stracke wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
In addition I recently had to cope with the hassles of setting up an
H.323 connection (with ohphoneX) from behind a firewall at both ends
and immediately concluded that people on any kind of wireless mesh
To connect VoIP with my other email. One of the most interested user
groups for fixed wireless networks is people with no telecomms
infrastructure to speak of. That is to say, much of the developing
world. In these places VoIP is a very popular application for a few
reasons ... first because
43 matches
Mail list logo
