On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Anycast topology tends to follow AS topology, as people prefer
> their own routes.
Indeed yes.
> routes. If you take a rural situation where you have your nearest
> (geographically) E911 service on some long link into Sprint, and
> the customer on some l
At 03:21 AM 2/28/2004, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2004-02-27-18:43:50, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >With Vonage you have to tell them where you are located so they can set
> >your 911 service up to the proper 911 center.
>
> You can take your Vonage with you. Some people do this.
Thus spake "vijay gill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unfortunately, while this sounds excellent in theory, what really
> happens is that you have a large chunk of equipment in the network
> belonging to vendor X, and then you introduce vendor Y. Most people
> I know don't suddenly throw out vendor X ...
On 2004-02-27-18:43:50, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >With Vonage you have to tell them where you are located so they can set
> >your 911 service up to the proper 911 center.
>
> You can take your Vonage with you. Some people do this. It's a bad idea to
> dial 911 on a Vonage
At 02:49 PM 2/27/2004, Jeff Shultz wrote:
** Reply to message from Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 27 Feb
2004 21:19:48 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with a
cell
> >phone, basing it on the physical service address
[1] Should VoIP include 911/999 service, and how does one resolve the
various geographic location issues associated with this.
I'm glad that got people talking :-)
[snip - one of the many issues; I think you route the call to India and
have someone ask the user where they are, then re-route the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:42:32 +0200, Petri Helenius said:
Unless you are the rare beast with Mobile IP this would probably work
alright in 99% of the cases.
20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with a cell
phone, basing it on the physical servic
e does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged
Network Threat)
** Reply to message from Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 27 Feb
2004 21:19:48 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with
>
** Reply to message from Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 27 Feb
2004 21:19:48 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with a cell
> >phone, basing it on the physical service address that the copper runs to would
> >probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:19:48 +0200, Petri Helenius said:
So all IP phones should be outside of buildings and equipped with GPS or
Galileo receivers?
I can think of plenty of buildings where you'd want the GPS even inside if
feasible. Think "any mall or office b
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:19:48 +0200, Petri Helenius said:
> So all IP phones should be outside of buildings and equipped with GPS or
> Galileo receivers?
I can think of plenty of buildings where you'd want the GPS even inside if
feasible. Think "any mall or office buil;ding over 250K square fee
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with a cell
phone, basing it on the physical service address that the copper runs to would
probably work alright in 99% of the cases".
Let's not make the same mistake again.
So all IP phones should be outs
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:42:32 +0200, Petri Helenius said:
> Unless you are the rare beast with Mobile IP this would probably work
> alright in 99% of the cases.
20 years ago, 911 was able to say "unless you're the rare beast with a cell
phone, basing it on the physical service address that the co
Crist Clark wrote:
To steer a little ways back on topic, perhaps looking at the standards
for how mobile phones deal with emergency services is better analogue
for mobile IP phones than how POTS does things.
Install SRV records to the reverse zone to give you emergency,
directory, etc. service
Sam Stickland wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. I think a solution lies in the general direction
of converting the entire world to use 112 for emergency
services and having the VoIP services set up an automated
system that rings back whenever your phone connects using
a different IP address and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> P.S. I think a solution lies in the general direction
> of converting the entire world to use 112 for emergency
> services and having the VoIP services set up an automated
> system that rings back whenever your phone connects using
> a different IP address and asks you
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:37:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> P.S. I think a solution lies in the general direction
> of converting the entire world to use 112 for emergency
> services and having the VoIP services set up an automated
> system that rings back whenever your phone connects using
> a d
--On 27 February 2004 14:52 + Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Because you always want to get to an E911 service in the same AS
number...
You do or you dont? I dont see why anycast addresses need or need not
be restricted to same AS.
Anycast topology tends to follow AS topology, as peop
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
> Because you always want to get to an E911 service in the same AS
> number...
You do or you dont? I dont see why anycast addresses need or need not
be restricted to same AS.
> (seriously, read the sip & sipping w/gs)
Havnt got the time. :) Unless you h
--On 27 February 2004 13:39 + Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds like a perfect job for anycast.
Because you always want to get to an E911 service in the same AS number...
(seriously, read the sip & sipping w/gs)
Alex
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In Canada and the USA they would dial 911
> In the UK they would dial 999
> In Europe they would dial 112 or possibly one of the various
> legacy national numbers for emergency service.
> And in Australia they would dial 000.
>
> Do you route all th
>[1] Should VoIP include 911/999 service, and how does one resolve the
>various geographic location issues associated with this.
Anyone who claims to answer this one should consider the how
to handle the case of a British subscriber to a VoIP service
who travels to the USA, Canada, all over Euro
>> I think the Internet is doing pretty well save some IOS code problems
>> from time to time, and the typical root server hicups.
>I'm interested to know what you mean by "typical root server hicups".
>I'm trying to think of an incident which left the Internet generally
>unable to receive ans
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:48:17AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Similarly, the Internet has always had N+1 or better vendor resiliency
> so IOS can have problems while the non-IOS vendor (or vendors) keep on
> running. In fact, I would argue that N+1 vendor resiliency is a good
> thing fo
> So now we have a partial X and partial
>Y network, X goes down, and chances are your network got hammered
>like an icecube in a blender set to Frappe.
If IP networks become the single layer 2/3 telecommunications
technology in the world then we can never let that Frappe happen.
We will have to
I think how reliable the internet needs to be depends on what you want to
use it for: if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet, if
you want to transfer money from one account to another you DO use the
internet. In other words right now it's good for things that are important
but
Roland Perry wrote:
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
net>, "Pendergrass, Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet
And you also need a way to persuade the Ambulance Service not to
terminate their calls via VoIP, or send dispatch instructions via
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:58:47 GMT, Roland Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> And you also need a way to persuade the Ambulance Service not to
> terminate their calls via VoIP, or send dispatch instructions via
> public-IP over GSM (or whatever) to their vehicles.
We often can't get the owners of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I think we will need also to make it illegal (to control the liability
issues) to need emergency assistance in a place whose only link
is via "public-IP".
This is an interesting issue, and one which is currently
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
We often can't get the owners of the fiber to 'fess up to the actual
physical path, when we're trying to build out diversity.
What makes you think the Ambulance Service will have the competency
to have any *clue* where their dial tone actual
get get the more "R" creeps in, but who defines critical and when
does that rise above a threshold to induce "R"?
- Original Message -
From: Roland Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: How relable does the Internet n
I don't post much as I'm mostly on here to learn and have little I
can contribute, but...
While following all the discussions, I wonder if there's too many
people here that work at large highly redundant facilities and live in
expensive areas with new circuits. I don't believe th
E911 and FBI surveillance are just the tip of the iceberg...
Joe
Does anyone have documented instances in which misconfigured or failed
residential VOIP services have resulted in deaths, or major injury? I
can see how it would be easy for the typical end-user to choose the
wrong regional 911
If the internet core is going to carry traffic that traditionally was
delivered via switched tdm networks, I think we can expect significantly
more regulation in the coming years. The FCC and state PUC's will want to
see VOIP reliability and call completion statistics that are on par with
existin
On (25/02/04 16:30), Steve Gibbard wrote:
>
> With that in mind, how much in the way of reliability problems is it
> reasonable to expect our users to accept?
probably something more than we tell them it will be down, but less than
we would (secretly) hope - most users tend to complain if it beco
> code problems from time to time, and the typical root server hicups.
Which hicups are those?
Thanks for pointing that out. That was the wrong way to describe my standpoint.
Frequent changes in DNS across the board, including edge servers
make connections seem non-working, when in reality it is a mis-configured DNS zone. So
whether
Dee
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Abley [m
On 26 Feb 2004, at 08:46, W.D.McKinney wrote:
I think the Internet is doing pretty well save some IOS code problems
from time to time, and the typical root server hicups.
I'm interested to know what you mean by "typical root server hicups".
I'm trying to think of an incident which left the Int
It needs to be as reliable as the services that depend on it.
E.g. if bank A is using the Internet exclusively without
leased line back up to run its ATMs, or to interface with
its customers, then it needs to be VERY reliable.
If it's just my kid checking his email on AOL, probably
not that reli
>-Original Message-
>From: Steve Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:30 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
>>So, it appears that among general infrastructure we depend on,
40 matches
Mail list logo
