Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 15:10, Larry Sheldon wrote: We wrote off a lot of revenue on calls that involved a company (if I remembered the name I still would not repeat it--ditto its location) which turn out to be pretty much one man who like to sell and install mobile radio telephone stations. And, it turns out, not even slightly interested in separations, bill and collecting, an other stuff that I think I meant "settlements", not "separations". But I'm not sure. dominates an Operating Company's attentions. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use >only a cellphone for the "right" area. > >I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am >in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in >in 24 hours. > >What should I do? As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are likely to be, you know, mobile. If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g. *MSP on the Mass Pike. R's, John
Security Track @ NANOG 67 Call for Participation
[ Apologies if you saw this elsewhere already - jtk ] Friends, colleagues, fellow operators, The network security track, formerly known as the ISP security BoF, may be on the agenda at NANOG 67 in Chicago and if we can put together a reasonable agenda I may be your track facilitator. We not only seek your participation, but we are also interested you contributing to the track content. If you have an idea or if you know someone who might like to present, discuss or conduct a demonstration of something, we want to hear from you. Here is an incomplete list of relevant topics to stir your thoughts: * Privacy-related issues and topics * DDoS attacks and mitigation * Internet of Things and security * Government regulatory and compliance issues * IPv6 considerations * abuse@ management and war stories * 802.11 authentication, authorization and accounting * New security software projects and tools (non-commercial) * BGPSEC and RPKI * The latest in protocol abuse * John
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 13:14 , Larry Sheldon wrote: > > On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: >>> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. >>> >>> VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge >>> extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly >>> reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay >>> the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what >>> I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 >>> mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell >>> phones, I think we're covered. >> >> With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. >> >> I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), >> so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service >> within the US”. >> >> The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with >> questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected >> my changes to their original wording. >> >> Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric >> and the price is right. > > Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I sincerely > hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the VOIP-phone is the > only one that works? That would be an interesting phenomenon since my VOIP clients are both dependent on data services working on one of laptop, iPad, iPhone. > Do you leave it turned off? Of course not, but since the building in question is very unlikely to have been any address I would have filed on said contract, it’s far better that the person at the other end is having to ask me for the address than to have emergency workers respond to some location that I’m not at. If, OTOH, the building in question is my home, I’m more likely to get a faster response by banging on a neighbors door than by struggling to get the VOIP phone up and running on some alternative connectivity. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 14:01 , John Levine wrote:
>
>> OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use
>> only a cellphone for the "right" area.
>>
>> I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am
>> in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in
>> in 24 hours.
>>
>> What should I do?
>
> As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of
> GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though
> they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are
> likely to be, you know, mobile.
Now if they could only figure this out for VOIP clients.
I realize that there are fixed-location VOIP phones and they may be the
majority,
but I also know that there are quite a few of us with VOIP clients that are as
mobile as our mobile phones, sometimes more so since my VOIP client doesn’t turn
into $2/min. when I enter the wrong country. Amusingly, 128k free data from T-Mo
as a mobile hot spot in many countries is quite adequate for a VOIP client while
making a call on the phone would cost $$.
> If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on
> major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you
> what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g.
> *MSP on the Mass Pike.
Depends on where you are. I’ve never seen such a sign anywhere on any major
highway
in California and mobile 911 calls in this state often get “interesting”
routing.
Fortunately, I’ve never encountered a dispatcher that required answers to more
than
one additional question in order to comply with my request that they route to
the
correct agency (I usually start off with enough information to tell them I know
why
I want to speak to the agency I am specifying, such as “I’m reporting an
incident
on {US/Interstate/State Hwy specification, e.g. US 101}, please transfer me to
CHP”
(CHP = California Highway Patrol, which has dispatch jurisdiction for all state
and
federal highways within California).
OTOH, I’ve been in parts of Canada where the signs merely specify that there is
no
911 service beyond that point without offering any alternative. Of course most
of those
signs were encountered well after my mobile stopped having any service
whatsoever,
so I always found them mildly amusing. Most of them are a giant picture of a
motorola
Brick phone from the late ‘80s with the message “Leaving 911 service area”.
I can’t find an appropriate image to reference in a google search, but I assure
you
that they were common place, at least last time I was in the Yukon.
Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
--- j...@kyneticwifi.com wrote: From: Josh Reynolds Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion? -- Filter it out. scott
Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
You do realize that this is the exact kind of thing that caused this discussion in the first place. I'm well familiar with that case. I was talking about my own experiences in the food service industry, but of course you barely read a sentence and set on a war path accusing me of not checking my facts, quite like somebody googling a geolocation for an ip and harnessing/threatening the other side. As to the case, it had its merits, but since then it has spawned a whole bunch of people trying to get rich quick. Now every company has to put these warning labels to appease their insurance companies. Now we have people that can't think for themselves that NEED labels. It's much like the debate about trying to legislate common sense. Todd Crane > On Apr 13, 2016, at 6:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:57:42 -0700, Todd Crane said: >> .What ever happened to holding people responsible for being >> stupid. When did it start becoming ((fill in the blank)) coffee shop >> for you burning your tongue on your coffee > > Whatever happened to holding people responsible for fact checking before they > post? :) > > You *do* realize that the woman in the McDonald's case got *third degree* > burns and required skin grafts, right? Water at 180F is hot enough to > burn you - we even have a word for it: scalding. And unlike sipping too-hot > coffee, where you can spit it out quickly, hot water spilled on clothing > continues to burn until the clothing is removed or cooled off - neither of > which is feasible when you're elderly and seated in a car. > > And that she originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills, and the > jury increased it with punitive damages when presented evidence that over 700 > other people had received burns? > > Now go and get informed, and commit this sin no more :) > > https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts - how that lawsuit *actually* played out.
Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/13/16 6:25 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: You *do* realize that the woman in the McDonald's case got *third degree* burns and required skin grafts, right? Water at 180F is hot enough to burn you - we even have a word for it: scalding. And unlike sipping too-hot coffee, where you can spit it out quickly, hot water spilled on clothing continues to burn until the clothing is removed or cooled off - neither of which is feasible when you're elderly and seated in a car. And that she originally only sued for the cost of her medical bills, and the jury increased it with punitive damages when presented evidence that over 700 other people had received burns? Now go and get informed, and commit this sin no more :) https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts - how that lawsuit *actually* played out. and http://www.stellaawards.com/ lists dozens of other lawsuits spawned by that result, as well as commentary on the McDonald's case. Last updated 2008 but I'm sure examples are still flooding in to a courtroom near you. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
DOCSIS 3.1 upstream
Canadian cable carriers seem to have all told the CRTC they can only carry 42mhz in the upstream because their amplifiers and nodes only amplify that narrow band in the upstream direction. Is/was 42mhz common across north america ? In a typical installation, how much of the 42mhz is actually usable for upstream data ? (aka: how many 6mhz chunks are taken for TV STBs, Telephony and whatever other upstream channels. I think I heard that one 6mhz chunk is used for one the low numbered TV analogue channels. (although cablecos are slowly widthdrawing analogue TV now). Am trying to figure out realistic bandwidth that a cableco with 42mhz limits for upstream will get on 3.1. Also, have cablecos with such limits for upstream begun to upgrade the cable plant to increase the upstream bandwidth ? Canadian cablecos have told the regulator it would be prohibitively expensive to do so, but incumbents tend to exagerate these things when it is convenient. (they can then claim higher costs/congestion/need for node splits which increates regulated wholesale rates). And would it be correct that in RFoG deployment, the 42mhz limit disapears as the customer equipment talks directly tothe CMTS over fibre all the way ?
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 16:01, John Levine wrote: OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use only a cellphone for the "right" area. I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in in 24 hours. What should I do? As previous messages have explained, mobile 9-1-1 uses a variety of GPS and tower info to determine where you are. Telcos, stupid though they may be, have figured out that people with mobile phones are likely to be, you know, mobile. If you drive a big truck, you're likely to spend a lot of time on major highways, and many of those highways have signs that tell you what to dial to contact the appropriate police for that road, e.g. *MSP on the Mass Pike. I understand all that. I quoted somebody as saying that some percentage of people use a cellphone in the wrong area code. I want never be caught in the wrong area code in my nomadic life. I think my best shot is to convince people that telephone numbers are not addresses of people and like my SSAN is assigned by somebody, I don't care who.
G root not responding on UDP?
Hello everyone I wonder if it's just me or anyone else also finding issues in g root reachability? ICMP, trace, UDP DNS queries all timing out. Only TCP seem to work. Trace is timing out on 208.46.37.38. traceroute to 192.112.36.4 (192.112.36.4), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 router01.home (172.16.0.1) 4.926 ms 1.863 ms 1.845 ms 2 103.60.176.101 (103.60.176.101) 24.007 ms 24.507 ms 22.330 ms 3 nsg-static-137.49.75.182-airtel.com (182.75.49.137) 64.435 ms 64.359 ms 66.108 ms 4 182.79.206.46 (182.79.206.46) 331.787 ms 182.79.206.53 (182.79.206.53) 228.497 ms 182.79.222.189 (182.79.222.189) 224.966 ms 5 ldn-brdr-01.qwest.net (195.66.225.34) 162.745 ms 162.139 ms 162.031 ms 6 lon-ddos-01.inet.qwest.net (67.14.63.58) 162.138 ms 162.125 ms 162.916 ms 7 * * * 8 chp-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (208.46.37.37) 242.819 ms 242.793 ms 242.575 ms 9 208.46.37.38 (208.46.37.38) 253.176 ms 253.066 ms 252.807 ms 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * dig @192.112.36.4 . ns ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached dig @192.112.36.4 . ns +tcp +noauth ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns +tcp +noauth ; (1 server found) ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29674 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 24 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 518400 IN NS g.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS l.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS f.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS h.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS k.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS b.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS c.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS e.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS j.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS i.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS m.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS a.root-servers.net. . 518400 IN NS d.root-servers.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: a.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.41.0.4 b.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.228.79.201 c.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.33.4.12 d.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.91.13 e.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.203.230.10 f.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.5.5.241 g.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.112.36.4 h.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.97.190.53 i.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.36.148.17 j.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.58.128.30 k.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 193.0.14.129 l.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.83.42 m.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 202.12.27.33 a.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:503:ba3e::2:30 b.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:84::b c.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2::c d.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2d::d f.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2f::f h.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:1::53 i.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:7fe::53 j.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:503:c27::2:30 k.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:7fd::1 l.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:9f::42 m.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:dc3::35 ;; Query time: 259 msec ;; SERVER: 192.112.36.4#53(192.112.36.4) ;; WHEN: Thu Apr 14 16:59:09 2016 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 744 Is UDP blocked recently or it has been like this from long? -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com
Re: G root not responding on UDP?
I'm see the same thing from multiple networks. $ dig NS . @g.root-servers.net ; <<>> DiG 9.9.5 <<>> NS . @g.root-servers.net ;; global options: +cmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Hello everyone > > > I wonder if it's just me or anyone else also finding issues in g root > reachability? > > > ICMP, trace, UDP DNS queries all timing out. Only TCP seem to work. > > > Trace is timing out on 208.46.37.38. > > > > traceroute to 192.112.36.4 (192.112.36.4), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets > 1 router01.home (172.16.0.1) 4.926 ms 1.863 ms 1.845 ms > 2 103.60.176.101 (103.60.176.101) 24.007 ms 24.507 ms 22.330 ms > 3 nsg-static-137.49.75.182-airtel.com (182.75.49.137) 64.435 ms 64.359 > ms 66.108 ms > 4 182.79.206.46 (182.79.206.46) 331.787 ms > 182.79.206.53 (182.79.206.53) 228.497 ms > 182.79.222.189 (182.79.222.189) 224.966 ms > 5 ldn-brdr-01.qwest.net (195.66.225.34) 162.745 ms 162.139 ms 162.031 > ms > 6 lon-ddos-01.inet.qwest.net (67.14.63.58) 162.138 ms 162.125 ms > 162.916 ms > 7 * * * > 8 chp-edge-01.inet.qwest.net (208.46.37.37) 242.819 ms 242.793 ms > 242.575 ms > 9 208.46.37.38 (208.46.37.38) 253.176 ms 253.066 ms 252.807 ms > 10 * * * > 11 * * * > 12 * * * > > > > > dig @192.112.36.4 . ns > > ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns > ; (1 server found) > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached > > > > > > dig @192.112.36.4 . ns +tcp +noauth > > ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> @192.112.36.4 . ns +tcp +noauth > ; (1 server found) > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29674 > ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 24 > ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;. IN NS > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > . 518400 IN NS g.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS l.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS f.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS h.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS k.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS b.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS c.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS e.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS j.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS i.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS m.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS a.root-servers.net. > . 518400 IN NS d.root-servers.net. > > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > a.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.41.0.4 > b.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.228.79.201 > c.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.33.4.12 > d.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.91.13 > e.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.203.230.10 > f.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.5.5.241 > g.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.112.36.4 > h.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 198.97.190.53 > i.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.36.148.17 > j.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 192.58.128.30 > k.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 193.0.14.129 > l.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 199.7.83.42 > m.root-servers.net. 360 IN A 202.12.27.33 > a.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:503:ba3e::2:30 > b.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:84::b > c.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2::c > d.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2d::d > f.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:2f::f > h.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:1::53 > i.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:7fe::53 > j.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:503:c27::2:30 > k.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:7fd::1 > l.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:500:9f::42 > m.root-servers.net. 360 IN 2001:dc3::35 > > ;; Query time: 259 msec > ;; SERVER: 192.112.36.4#53(192.112.36.4) > ;; WHEN: Thu Apr 14 16:59:09 2016 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 744 > > > > > > Is UDP blocked recently or it has been like this from long? > > > > -- > > > Anurag Bhatia > anuragbhatia.com
Re: G root not responding on UDP?
On 2016-04-14 13:30, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Hello everyone > > > I wonder if it's just me or anyone else also finding issues in g root > reachability? > > > ICMP, trace, UDP DNS queries all timing out. Only TCP seem to work. It's not only you: https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/?dnsmon.session.color_range_pls=0-5-5-25-100&dnsmon.session.exclude-errors=true&dnsmon.type=server-probes&dnsmon.server=192.112.36.4&dnsmon.zone=root&dnsmon.startTime=1460574600&dnsmon.endTime=1460616600&dnsmon.ipVersion=both (shorter link: https://t.co/7lgnCFCEDZ) Cheers, Robert
Re: Juniper vMX evaluation - how?
Thanks to all who responded (and thanks to the NANOGger who provided me with images). I am a bit disappointed that others have also had the silent treatment after signing up to download vMX. I am unsurprised that vMX 14.x has had teething troubles. I also hope JNPR listen to us that Intel are not the only SR-IOV game in town. Onward...
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
>If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't >have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very >expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is >*supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets >tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell phones, I think we're covered. R's, John
Re: G root not responding on UDP?
On 2016-04-14 14:29, Robert Kisteleki wrote: > On 2016-04-14 13:30, Anurag Bhatia wrote: >> Hello everyone >> >> >> I wonder if it's just me or anyone else also finding issues in g root >> reachability? >> >> >> ICMP, trace, UDP DNS queries all timing out. Only TCP seem to work. > > > It's not only you: > > https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/?dnsmon.session.color_range_pls=0-5-5-25-100&dnsmon.session.exclude-errors=true&dnsmon.type=server-probes&dnsmon.server=192.112.36.4&dnsmon.zone=root&dnsmon.startTime=1460574600&dnsmon.endTime=1460616600&dnsmon.ipVersion=both ... and it recovered already: https://atlas.ripe.net/dnsmon/?dnsmon.session.color_range_pls=0-5-5-25-100&dnsmon.session.exclude-errors=true&dnsmon.type=server-probes&dnsmon.server=192.112.36.4&dnsmon.zone=root&dnsmon.startTime=1460595996&dnsmon.endTime=1460637996&dnsmon.ipVersion=both&dnsmon.timeWindow=42000 Robert
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
"If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line." This hasn't been a true statement since Local Number Portability. NPA/NXX is nothing more than 'where the number originally was assigned from', and that only for the ones issued BEFORE LNP started; since is anyone's guess. They follow something similiar to what a routed phone call does, but ties into slightly different information that is 'supposed' to associate the end-client address with said LNI that is 'supposed' to be populated with accurate street address information. Similar to what VoIP has had to deal with since, most charge a fee, disclaim any responsibility as to the accuracy of the information that the end user provides. I am sure litigation on/around THAT particular issue is just around the corner. Regards, Jonathan Smith On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 4/13/16 8:54 PM, Peter Beckman wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Jay Hennigan wrote: >> > > When either of those people dial 9-1-1, where does the ambulance show up? >>> >> >> I suspect your response was sarcastic, but when you dig into what really >> happens, it's not nearly as sophisticated as one might hope. >> >> If the numbers are land or VoIP lines, and the address associated with >> the >> numbers are registered with the Automatic Location Information (ALI) >> database run by ILECs or 3rd parties to fetch the address keyed on the >> calling number, and the 911 PSAP is E911 capable, they operator will see >> the ALI address. >> > > If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't > have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive > foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to > be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around > without the user considering 9-1-1. > > VoIP was the scenario to which I was referring. A VoIP phone native to > 408-land that moves with a remote office worker to Boston without a > conscious effort on his company and VoIP provider to track it down and > update ALI will reach a PSAP in San Jose or thereabouts. The PSAPs have > forwarding capability but generally only to neighboring PSAPs with a single > button. How quickly will they be able to get the call routed to Boston, if > at all? And as we saw at the beginning of the thread, forget geo-IP. The > ambulance goes to the Vogelmans' farm. If a remote office worker, it could > be VPN back to the VoIP PBX in 408-land anyway. > > So, it isn't just IP addresses that aren't easily geo-referenced. It's > also phone numbers. The number may start as a well-referenced PRI going to > an IP-PBX after which all bets are off. If the ANI is the company's HQ main > number where the PRI and IP-PBX are located, then it's just about > impossible to route 9-1-1 from a worker's IP phone in Boston to the right > PSAP. > > If they are mobile devices, it depends. Basic gives you nothing (all >> phones >> since 2003 should have GPS, but people hang on to phones a long time..); >> > > Mobile is a separate case where it's expected that the NPA-NXX isn't going > to be tied to a location. In California, mobile 9-1-1 goes to the CHP and > not the local PSAP based on the cell tower or GPS for that reason. If not a > traffic incident, they forward to the appropriate PSAP based on the > caller's info or perhaps whatever ALI (or estimate) they get from the > cellular provider. > > > -- > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net > Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ > Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV >
FCC Privacy NPRM [was Re: GeoIP database]
I have not yet read all of the 147 pages of the FCC Privacy NPRM - https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-proposed-rules-protect-broadband- consumer-privacy. But it may be worth noting, especially for this audience, that the FCC proposes considering things like IP addresses and geo-location information to be Customer Proprietary Information. While IANAL it seems that this could perhaps complicate efforts to make GeoIP services more accurate. But who knows. Jason P.S. While these proposed rules would only initially apply to ISPs, from what I understand following adoption there will be a move for so-called parity such that any app or edge provider in the US might have to meet the same standards. On 4/12/16, 8:17 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Jean-Francois Mezei" wrote: >All GeoIP services would be forced to document their default lat/long >values so that users know that when these values, they know it is a >generic one for that country. (or supply +181. +91.0 which is an >invalid value indicating that there is no lat/long, look at country code >given). >
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine wrote: > The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics > and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers > are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported > repeatedly. It's a big issue for political pollers, and they have some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/pew-research-center-will-call-75-cellphones-for-surveys-in-2016/ "roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults whose only phone is a cellphone." "in a recent national poll, 8% of people interviewed by cellphone in California had a phone number from a state other than California. Similarly, of the people called on a cellphone number associated with California, 10% were interviewed in a different state." So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpw6JzSDGLKQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: . > So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
All, Is NANOG really the best place for this discussion? On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > . >> So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? > > Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
> On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: > >> If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't >> have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very >> expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is >> *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets >> tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. > > VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge > extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly > reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay > the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what > I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 > mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell > phones, I think we're covered. With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service within the US”. The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected my changes to their original wording. Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. Owen
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. That's who I use. Now there's just a box on the web site to say not in the US. R's, John
Re: FCC Privacy NPRM
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Livingood, Jason wrote: I have not yet read all of the 147 pages of the FCC Privacy NPRM - https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-proposed-rules-protect-broadband- consumer-privacy. But it may be worth noting, especially for this audience, that the FCC proposes considering things like IP addresses and geo-location information to be Customer Proprietary Information. Pretty much all ISPs should take a look at this NPRM. Although its advertised as a "privacy" rule-making, it has a several sections on ISP data security and data breach notification, including mandatory reporting to the FCC and FBI.
Re: FCC Privacy NPRM
Page Not Found Link wasn't copied correctly, the "consumer-privacy" bit was cut off. Here's the working link: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-proposed-rules-protect-broadband-consumer-privacy On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Livingood, Jason wrote: > >> I have not yet read all of the 147 pages of the FCC Privacy NPRM - >> >> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-proposed-rules-protect-broadband- >> consumer-privacy. But it may be worth noting, especially for this >> audience, that the FCC proposes considering things like IP addresses and >> geo-location information to be Customer Proprietary Information. >> > > Pretty much all ISPs should take a look at this NPRM. Although its > advertised as a "privacy" rule-making, it has a several sections on ISP > data security and data breach notification, including mandatory reporting > to the FCC and FBI. > >
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 10:32, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:29:39AM -, John Levine wrote: The people on nanog are not typical. I looked around for statistics and didn't find much, but it looks like only a few percent of numbers are ported each month, and it's often the same numbers being ported repeatedly. It's a big issue for political pollers, and they have some data: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/pew-research-center-will-call-75-cellphones-for-surveys-in-2016/ "roughly half (47%) of U.S. adults whose only phone is a cellphone." "in a recent national poll, 8% of people interviewed by cellphone in California had a phone number from a state other than California. Similarly, of the people called on a cellphone number associated with California, 10% were interviewed in a different state." So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? OK, let us suppose I want to be a law biding, up right American and use only a cellphone for the "right" area. I drive a big truck OTR. I usually know what part of which state I am in, but I frequently do not know which part of what state I will be in in 24 hours. What should I do? Suppose I was, instead, an aircrew member and the only truly stable datum is "Planet Earth"? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 10:45, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: . So maybe 10% of all cell phones are primarly used in the "wrong" area? Obligatory xkcd ref: https://xkcd.com/1129/ I am reminded of incidents many years ago when I worked in a Revenue Accounting Office of a Bell System Operating Company. One of my duties involved dealing with the mostly-manually-processed toll calls originating or terminating at a Mobile Telephone System station in our area (whatever the word "area" turns out to mean). We wrote off a lot of revenue on calls that involved a company (if I remembered the name I still would not repeat it--ditto its location) which turn out to be pretty much one man who like to sell and install mobile radio telephone stations. And, it turns out, not even slightly interested in separations, bill an collecting, an other stuff that dominates an Operating Company's attentions. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 4/14/2016 12:09, Owen DeLong wrote: On Apr 14, 2016, at 05:46 , John Levine wrote: If they're land lines, the NPA/NXX will be local to the CO so you won't have out-of-area numbers other than a rare corner case of a very expensive foreign exchange line. If they're VoIP lines, the address is *supposed* to be so registered, but softphones and even VoIP handsets tend to move around without the user considering 9-1-1. VoIP was dragged kicking and screaming into E911, so now they charge extra and are quite clear about it. My VoIP provider regularly reminds me to update my 9-1-1 address, but since I don't have to pay the 9-1-1 fee if I lie and say I'm outside North America, that's what I do. Since I also have a classic CO-powered copper landline (1/4 mile from the CO, no concentrators or repeaters) and a couple of cell phones, I think we're covered. With my VOIP provider, I didn’t quite have to lie. I generally don’t need my VOIP number when I’m in the US (cell is free here), so I simply told them “I do not intend to use this number or this service within the US”. The first time I sent them a marked-up contract, they contacted me with questions. The following year, the new version of the contract reflected my changes to their original wording. Since then, I’ve been pretty much satisfied with my service from callcentric and the price is right. Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I sincerely hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the VOIP-phone is the only one that works? Do you leave it turned off? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Re: phone fun, was GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences
On 2016-04-14 16:14, Larry Sheldon wrote: > Quick question: What happens (in the purely hypothetical case, I > sincerely hope) if the building is on fire and it turns out that the > VOIP-phone is the only one that works? VOIP: Not purely theoretical situation. 911 where I live would take about 10 minutes of repeating my address and spelling it out to different people as I got passed around until I finally got to fire dept where I could finally and one last time spell out address. (I live on Fairwood, there is a street near here Sherwood). My ISP geolocates to a different down in south shore of montreal). What I do now: I have the actual telephone number for the fire station 3 blocks from where I live. When appt building alarm rings (we're not directly connected), I call the actual dept "have you received a call for , we're on fire". They say "no, we haven't". I say "expect one in about 10 minutes once I get through the 911 bozos". When you call 911, you first have to select from a gazillion languages. Cell phone: Got hit by hit and run, but managed to stay on my bike. Arm hurt like hell. Was mad as hell. Made mistake of calling 911 who refused to pass me to Sureté du Québec police (rural area). I was hoping they had a car that was in area and could intercept that white car as it intersected with main road a few km down the road. 911 insisted they send an ambulance, that I was in shock etc etc. They asked me to spell out the street I was on. Told them I had to get to the next intersection with a country rd to see the spelling. (meanwhile, they insist I don't move because they want to send ambulance, not believing I was still on my bike rolling at low speed). At no point did they give me ANY indication they had my location from towers or my iphone. When I finally go through to the SQ, we arranged to meet at intersection with main road. They saw my bruised arm, and saw I was quite mad/nervous/in shock. They told me to bypass 911 alltogether and call *4141 to get them right away and that they have the same tools to locate a call. ((in hindsight, drunk young guys accelerated to high speed and passed right next to me and threw something at me which it my arm at high speed. Initially though I had hit their mirror but mirror t low to have hit near shoulder).
