On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:18:54AM -0500, BN wrote:
> If I was AT&T and I really want to create a problem for Vonage users, I
> wouldn't NAT the packets. Its too noticeable.
>
> I would set up some sort of linux bridge and randomly discard or hold
> (queue) UDP packets for random intervals, so each side gets a garbled
> mess of out of order RTP-UDP packets. This would create a lot of echo,
> delay and swirlies in the phone.
>
> It would make you think that is not AT&T's direct fault, but maybe it
> could be Vonage's.
>
> You could probably do that with all of the unwanted ports and protocols.
> (Basically everything but HTTP, Email, and Instant Messaging)
^^^^^^^^^^^
Those use TCP.
> Hey, maybe I should build it and sell the service to AT&T. Just Kidding!
And b) trim thy posts...
florin
--
"If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is."
41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020714/462f34f3/attachment.pgp