Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Curtis E. Bemis who wrote (19477)	11/22/1998 3:01:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Thanks, Curtis. I stated: "VoIP in its many emerging and integrated forms could only be tracked with packet meters and Layer 3/4 traps." ...which is effectively what you expanded on in much greater detail. >> there is the H.323 call setup and negotiation; that is TCP.<< And whom do propose will be monitoring all of these packets and gateways at the enterprise levels, once VoIP replaces PBX tie lines to come up with a running summary of how many calls were placed for how many minutes? >> Next is the actual VOIP data and that is RTP/UDP and these are 60 Byte ip datagrams, encapsulated in whatever the frame encapsulation is, ie. HDLC or Frame Relay or whatever.<< Ditto. Packet cops can only work today in a universal manner if they are tagged in a kind of SS7-associated accounting system which is a possible means of countering my assertions, granted. But that would still only apply to the PSTN-like services, in the public voice nets using VoIP as the transport. I don't think that the IETF is ready just yet to begin developing such a trapping mechanism, however. That would simply be adding fuel to the opposition's fire. The Accounting Rate Crowd, that is. Come to think of it, the ITU is having quite a bit to say lately... >>The complexity arises with VPNs and the methods used for that. (ip-in-ip, ie. tunnels, or "Tag", or whatever you want to call it<< Agreed. >>--we have had this particular discussion before ;-) ). << Yes, kinda, at least once. ;-) Later, Frank