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 setup
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 ... .
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. It's a
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 long
[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
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 these
--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, 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 have
--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
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
[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
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
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.
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
[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
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
[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
** 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 work
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
a cell phone, basing it on the physical service address
[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
[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
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 that the
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
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
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
public-IP over GSM (or
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 answers to
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 for
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
happen to you before?. For that to happen there has to
be more accountability in the industry.
-GP
-Original Message-
From: Steve Gibbard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 February 2004 00:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged
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 the
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
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 need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network
Threat
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
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 being
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
Having woken up this morning and realized it was raining in my bedroom
(last night was the biggest storm the Bay Area has had since my house got
its new roof last summer), and then having moved from cleaning up that
mess to vacuuming water out of the basement after the city's storm sewer
-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)
snipped
So, it appears that among general infrastructure we depend
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
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
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
code problems from time to time, and the typical root server hicups.
Which hicups are those?
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
