Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly adopts IPv6)

[Richard Shockey <richard at shockey.us>]

At 12:07 AM 6/19/2003 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:

> mat at cisco.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
>
> > Voice challenges this assumption to a very large
> > degree. In fact, I not only want access to 99.99%
> > of the other nodes on the net willing to speak RTP ...
>
> actually i think you probably don't, or rather, won't.
>
> telemarketing by robot is illegal in some places but is
> widely used to detect fax machines or voice-answered
> lines for later use by other robots or by humans.  one
> of the cost components for this kind of activity today
> is a room full of CTI hardware and a DS1 (or better) and
> a willingness to buy blocks of long distance minutes.

Which BTW come July 1 becomes illegal in the US with the implementation of 
the Federal Trade Commission Do Not Call list.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/index.html


> assuming VoIP takes off, the costs of robotic telemarketing
> are going to go way way down.  in particular, it may become
> popular to sweep the E164.ARPA address space looking for
> endpoints, then sweep the resulting RTP endpoints looking
> for live reachable instruments like humans and fax machines.

I'm personally asked this all the time since I co-chair the ENUM WG. I 
think there is going to be some differences here..

A. The way the FTC DNC law was written it is transport neutral. Some of us 
are confident we can apply the law directly to ENUM enabled VoIP.

People forget that the TCPA Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the US and 
the anti junk fax laws were generally effective if a private cause of 
action was permitted. That BTW is the central issue now being debated in 
Congress in the mark up of the Burns-Wyden bill tomorrow.

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

I would have loved to be able to insert into the bill a provision to make 
RFC 3261 header spoofing illegal as well.

B. The real key here in the protection of VoIP will be my ability to 
control my SIP proxy at the edge as a policy control mechanism.

Personally I would have preferred Charlie Schumers bill which would have 
had a do not spam list but it seems its not going to make it this session.

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s1231.html


> ...and that your RTP instrument will have to be one of the
> most violently over-firewalled devices on your network in
> order to remain useful for its intended (by you that is)
> purpose.
>
> maybe i should get back into the blackhole business, but for
> VoIP this time, since it'll be a HUUUUGE market.

The Feds will beat you to market on this one...

> --
> Paul Vixie


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza  -   Sterling, VA  20166
Voice +1 571.434.5651 Cell : +1 703.593.2683,  Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or <mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
 <http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<