Computing can never be fully trusted unless the code instruction memory is "physically" segregated from the data upon which the code will operate upon. With Moore's Law doing its thing, trusted computing must and will ultimately first take place at the hardware level to effectively implement the more expensive Harvard architecture CPU. The rest is just marketing OS BS.
There is no reason for trusted computing to be proprietary, unless hardware vendors want to sell fewer chips in the long-run.
H.323 is a dieing standard. Why does anyone want to waste time using it in an office suite? With over 120 vendors developing or currently selling SIP infrastructure products it will be a big mistake to ignore SIP when integrating VoIP capabilities into an Open Source Office suite. Besides, Windows Messenger uses SIP and Microsoft is stopping the support for its H.323 client called NetMeeting. Visit http://www.pulver.com/products/sip/ to see a list of vendors selling SIP components. The major Telecom players (wired carriers, wireless 3G carriers, hardware vendors, software vendors) are hedging their infrastructure bets with SIP, RFC 3261. There are at least a half a dozen Open Source frameworks to use and here are few I would recommend.
1) http://www.iptel.org/ser/: Scalable lightweight and C-based, will become the Apache of SIP. These Germans really know their stuff. They have bridged SIMPLE (SIP Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions) with Jabber. 2) http://www.resiprocate.org/: A very stable C++ implementation used by HW vendors 3) http://dns.antd.nist.gov/proj/iptel/: Java-based implementation of the JAIN-SIP interface that also has a variant interface that works on a PDA. 4) http://www.vovida.org/: Cisco's C++ implementation
I speak from experience after participating in SIPit (SIP Interoperability Testing) 11 & 13, see http://www.sipit.net/sipit.php.
The U.S. needs a new Telecom infrastructure to keep itself competitive in the World market. Imagine all the imported oil that would not be needed in the U.S. if knowledge workers did not have to commute. Imagine the reduction in pollution in big cities. Imagine the extra time people would have not commuting. Imagine a new telephone/video system that is not vulnerable to huge black outs or rouge passenger/cargo aircraft. An IP centric Telecom infrastructure will put the fear of God in most any intellectual terrorist's mind.
I think the Democrats need to get a vision like the days JFK wanted to send a man to the moon. A loss in tax revenue is double-speak for creating justification for more taxes. I would like to see the tax-free day for Americans to move to the left for once. Our Society was founded because of a tax revolt some 227 years ago.
It would be interesting to see if the Baby Bells are swaying Senators to tax the Internet. Political motives are more than skin deep. This tax debate is really about VoIP technology and the excessive taxes levied on the PSTN Telecom industry and paid by the average Joe. I believe up until a few years ago Americans were still paying Telecom taxes for the Spanish American War.
Tactics and policies always lag technology. Technology is the only weapon for the triple constraint (Cost, Schedule & Quality). Americans must learn to embrace and adapt to new technology or accept a diminished quality of life.
Senators please go ahead and vote for taxing the Internet so we reduce the standard of living for our children, grandchildren...
I really suck at getting hits for Slashdot posting comments but the my comments on the record completely agree with Robertson. Look at the following responses and keep in mind Slahdot has a bug introducing an artificial white space preventing the last three digits 649 & 569 & 421 from being part of the URLs below:
from http://slashdot.org/~skaht/
1) In response to "New VOIP App. Profiled" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/10/13132 07&tid=) see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78462&cid=6969 649
2) In response to "FCC Still Pushing for Number Portability on Nov. 24" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/14/20252 03&tid=) see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=81832&cid=7184 569
3) Look at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58766&cid=5620 421
It might just be easier to paste the response here for ENUM:
Local Number Portability (LNP) is the last major milestone before E.164 NUMbers (ENUM) services kick in. RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) have been slow rolling ENUM for a number of years but thank God there is competition in the U.S. Expect to see AT&T, Cox Communications and MCI to offer ENUM services by 3Q04 or 4Q04. This will allow E.164 telephone numbers to be used to ring up your broadband VoIP phones. Yes, this allows LNP to be extended across the PSTN into IP networks. ENUM goes even further by enabling you to be reached wherever you are at with just one number by introducing the concept of an Address of Record (AOR). This is really nothing more than DNS NAPTR record technology. Imagine DNS being used for both virtual domains and LNP. For more details, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt.
With SIP VoIP hardphones dropping to $65 each (see http://www.sipphone.com/tiki-index.php?page=Order% 20Now), broadband services and ENUM services kicking in around 4Q04, consumer VoIP will be very hot in 2005.
I would also like to see the Baby Bell monopoly on the TCAP PSAP records for 911 services come to an end. There are much cheaper, flexible and more capable IP based technologies out there that need to replace existing PSAP mechanisms. After all, 9-11 2001 and the Northeast Blackout of 2003 should has taught us something about the PSTN.
Local Number Portability (LNP) is the last major milestone before E.164 NUMbers (ENUM) services kick in. RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies)have been slow rolling ENUM for a number of years but thank God there is competition in the U.S. Expect to see AT&T, Cox Communications and MCI to offer ENUM services by 3Q04 or 4Q04. This will allow E.164 telephone numbers to be used to ring up your broadband VoIP phones. Yes, this allows LNP to be extended across the PSTN into IP networks. ENUM goes even further by enabling you to be reached wherever you are at with just one number by introducing the concept of an Address of Record (AOR). This is really nothing more than DNS NAPTR record technology. Imagine DNS being used for both virtual domains and LNP. For more details, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt.
With SIP VoIP hardphones dropping to $65 each (see http://www.sipphone.com/tiki-index.php?page=Order% 20Now), broadband services and ENUM services kicking in around 4Q04, consumer VoIP will be very hot in 2005.
I would also like to see the Baby Bell monopoly on the TCAP PSAP records for 911 services come to an end. There are much cheaper, flexible and more capable IP based technologies out there that need to replace existing PSAP mechanisms. After all, 9-11 2001 and the Northeast Blackout of 2003 should has taught us something about the PSTN.
Nothing like a marketors spinning a disinformation web. Get real. No proprietary protocol has a chance at replacing Telecom infrastructure! What has the PSTN and Internet technologies taught us in the last 20 years.
Take it from a person that has attended two SIPit (SIP interoperability testing events), SIP is most definitely it!!! Over 10 Billion US VC dollars were invested in NGN VoIPtechnologies in 2000. The SIP Tsunami will strike hard in 2005. There are over 100 companies that already sell SIP products or have SIP products in the pipeline. There is plenty of SIP Open Source code:
The IETF has done a splendid job developing the SIP specification (RFC 3261) as a true international standard that will become as ubiquitous as HTTP and SMTP in the coming years.
There is plenty of room for innovation to occur using SIP technology. It is after all a third generation Web technology that uses P2P technology at its core. I would dare to say within two years SIP technology will cause great convergence in the following market spaces: Telecom, Game, Grid Computing and Distributed M&S.
From thermodynamics, we know entropy (a measure of randomness) typically increases except where there is life that creates order. Where there is order there is redundancy of information, which leads to better compression.
Try the iptel.org VoIP Service & its GNU softw
on
Snooping on VOIP
·
· Score: 1
FYI,
Jeff Pulver is a great guy to network with in the SIP VoIP industry.
The German's also have a similar site to Jeff's at iptel.org. The iptel.org Web site appears to have over 65,000 accounts. They are working on SIP Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extentions (SIMPLE) server infrastructure that could give the Microsoft RTC a run for its money.
There are plenty of providers or carriers that provide SIP services here are a few.
Business Grade:
1) Worldcom
2) Webley
3) Denwa
Consumer Grade:
1) Delta Three
2) Vonage
Because SIP servers proxy and registration servers can be anywhere in the world CALEA can't be enforced at the server end. Thus, support for US CALEA laws would have to be provided by the ISP or carrier providing the broadband service. (Most of the SIP VoIP phones support or default to G.711 CODECs that consume 90 kilobits per second of bandwidth.)
I highly recommend using the Intertex IX66 firewall with SIP hard and softphones. Its OS is Linux and interoperates with a very large array of SIP products. (The ipDialog hard phones are also Linux-based.)
There is plenty of open source SIP server software on the Internet:
1) http://iptel.org/ - FhG Fokus spin off, written in C 2) http://www.vovida.org/ - really Cisco, written in C++ 3) http://dns.antd.nist.gov/proj/iptel/ - The National Institute of Standards is to release Java JAIN v1.1 reference implementation shortly 4) http://www.siptrex.org/news/ - an IP Centrex framework using older NIST software from the University College London guys
The hottest CODEC technology coming out is called H.26l, which is a collaborative real-time technology like H.261, H.262 and MPEG-2. MPEG-4 is a streaming technology, which means it really is not meant for interactive VTC-like communications. Streaming technologies typically add more latency to gain efficiency and collaborative CODEC technologies emphasize timing constraints over efficiency for both encoding and decoding in real-time.
The last time streaming CODEC and collaborative CODEC technologies merged the technology was called MPEG-2. Satellite TV transmissions; cable TV, DVD, camcorders are all now based on MPEG-2 technology. The next time streaming and collaborative CODEC technologies merge it will be called H.26l. This is essentially a next generation hybrid of H.262 and MPEG-4.
I hope the Open Source development crowd won't loose sight of this fact while the current MPEG-4 media fog is quite thick. Because next generation IETF Session Initiated Protocol (RFC 3261) VoIP technologies will require truly open standards to make next generation IP telephony interoperable and thus immensely successful around the World. Streaming video technologies will be passé compared to collaborative video technologies.
Strong Open Source collaborative tools will allow Open Source developers to be incredibly efficient. The real issue is how much longer closed source developers will have access to better collaborative tools than Open Source developers. It is time for something more than free H.261 collaborative CODECs for the UNIXes.
According to a conversation I had with Robert Pepper, entities in Europe owning spectrum can't lease them like in the U.S. With 3G spectrum being so expensive in Europe, UWB could bypass the regulation issues that may take forever to to fix thus jumpstarting the 3G wireless efforts. No wonder why Intel is pushing 3G efforts, to sell more microprocessors.
Cyber agents, guards, police, these analogies just won't quit. I am sensing more than the role of a cyber agent in this article. What is to prevent an excessive ease dropping on my private communications? This technology could be easily abused to gain an unlawful control of information to obviate a democracy from functioning like it was intended to. I would like to see a separation of powers for instituting its use from a very granular to coarse level of monitoring and/or control. This technology might be ready for fielding in three years but the developing acceptable policies for its use could take longer and may affect the overall architecture, thus delaying deployment even longer.
All right, "No central authority operates the agent", but the information for making decisions must be aggregated, a form of centralization. Granted the use of this information for command decisions may be decentralized, but the information aggregation process will susceptible to spoofing.
Also, man will be in the loop somehow. When the information is aggregated, the reaction times for responding to this higher level of information slows down considerably. Thus, the control can become stable. The time for tactical decision making with cyber technology will be to small for a human, but strategic decisions will always involve man.
Slashdot Mirror
2-cents
Computing can never be fully trusted unless the code instruction memory is "physically" segregated from the data upon which the code will operate upon. With Moore's Law doing its thing, trusted computing must and will ultimately first take place at the hardware level to effectively implement the more expensive Harvard architecture CPU. The rest is just marketing OS BS.
There is no reason for trusted computing to be proprietary, unless hardware vendors want to sell fewer chips in the long-run.
H.323 is a dieing standard. Why does anyone want to waste time using it in an office suite? With over 120 vendors developing or currently selling SIP infrastructure products it will be a big mistake to ignore SIP when integrating VoIP capabilities into an Open Source Office suite. Besides, Windows Messenger uses SIP and Microsoft is stopping the support for its H.323 client called NetMeeting. Visit http://www.pulver.com/products/sip/ to see a list of vendors selling SIP components. The major Telecom players (wired carriers, wireless 3G carriers, hardware vendors, software vendors) are hedging their infrastructure bets with SIP, RFC 3261. There are at least a half a dozen Open Source frameworks to use and here are few I would recommend.
o rg/
1) http://www.iptel.org/ser/: Scalable lightweight and C-based, will become the Apache of SIP. These Germans really know their stuff. They have bridged SIMPLE (SIP Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions) with Jabber.
2) http://www.resiprocate.org/: A very stable C++ implementation used by HW vendors
3) http://dns.antd.nist.gov/proj/iptel/: Java-based implementation of the JAIN-SIP interface that also has a variant interface that works on a PDA.
4) http://www.vovida.org/: Cisco's C++ implementation
I speak from experience after participating in SIPit (SIP Interoperability Testing) 11 & 13, see http://www.sipit.net/sipit.php.
SIP Carriers:
1) http://www.vonage.com/
2) http://www.iconnecthere.com/
3) http://www.webley.com/
4) http://www.mci.com/
5) http://www.levelthree.com/
Also visit:
http://www.sipcenter.com/
http://www.sipforum.
I hope this makes a strong case with sound ideas.
The U.S. needs a new Telecom infrastructure to keep itself competitive in the World market. Imagine all the imported oil that would not be needed in the U.S. if knowledge workers did not have to commute. Imagine the reduction in pollution in big cities. Imagine the extra time people would have not commuting. Imagine a new telephone/video system that is not vulnerable to huge black outs or rouge passenger/cargo aircraft. An IP centric Telecom infrastructure will put the fear of God in most any intellectual terrorist's mind.
I think the Democrats need to get a vision like the days JFK wanted to send a man to the moon. A loss in tax revenue is double-speak for creating justification for more taxes. I would like to see the tax-free day for Americans to move to the left for once. Our Society was founded because of a tax revolt some 227 years ago.
It would be interesting to see if the Baby Bells are swaying Senators to tax the Internet. Political motives are more than skin deep. This tax debate is really about VoIP technology and the excessive taxes levied on the PSTN Telecom industry and paid by the average Joe. I believe up until a few years ago Americans were still paying Telecom taxes for the Spanish American War.
Tactics and policies always lag technology. Technology is the only weapon for the triple constraint (Cost, Schedule & Quality). Americans must learn to embrace and adapt to new technology or accept a diminished quality of life.
Senators please go ahead and vote for taxing the Internet so we reduce the standard of living for our children, grandchildren...
I really suck at getting hits for Slashdot posting comments but the my comments on the record completely agree with Robertson. Look at the following responses and keep in mind Slahdot has a bug introducing an artificial white space preventing the last three digits 649 & 569 & 421 from being part of the URLs below :
2 07&tid=) see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78462&cid=6969 649
2 03&tid=) see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=81832&cid=7184 569
0 421
from http://slashdot.org/~skaht/
1) In response to "New VOIP App. Profiled" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/10/1313
2) In response to "FCC Still Pushing for Number Portability on Nov. 24" (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/14/2025
3) Look at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58766&cid=562
It might just be easier to paste the response here for ENUM:
% 20Now), broadband services and ENUM services kicking in around 4Q04, consumer VoIP will be very hot in 2005.
Local Number Portability (LNP) is the last major milestone before E.164 NUMbers (ENUM) services kick in. RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) have been slow rolling ENUM for a number of years but thank God there is competition in the U.S. Expect to see AT&T, Cox Communications and MCI to offer ENUM services by 3Q04 or 4Q04. This will allow E.164 telephone numbers to be used to ring up your broadband VoIP phones. Yes, this allows LNP to be extended across the PSTN into IP networks. ENUM goes even further by enabling you to be reached wherever you are at with just one number by introducing the concept of an Address of Record (AOR). This is really nothing more than DNS NAPTR record technology. Imagine DNS being used for both virtual domains and LNP. For more details, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt.
With SIP VoIP hardphones dropping to $65 each (see http://www.sipphone.com/tiki-index.php?page=Order
I would also like to see the Baby Bell monopoly on the TCAP PSAP records for 911 services come to an end. There are much cheaper, flexible and more capable IP based technologies out there that need to replace existing PSAP mechanisms. After all, 9-11 2001 and the Northeast Blackout of 2003 should has taught us something about the PSTN.
Hey guys, we do. Take a look at "A Prelude ENUM" a couple of threads below. ENUM is about using DNS for telephone numbers.
See the "A Prelude to ENUM" above. This should clue you guys into what is really going on.
Meaty Food for Thought,
% 20Now), broadband services and ENUM services kicking in around 4Q04, consumer VoIP will be very hot in 2005.
Local Number Portability (LNP) is the last major milestone before E.164 NUMbers (ENUM) services kick in. RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies)have been slow rolling ENUM for a number of years but thank God there is competition in the U.S. Expect to see AT&T, Cox Communications and MCI to offer ENUM services by 3Q04 or 4Q04. This will allow E.164 telephone numbers to be used to ring up your broadband VoIP phones. Yes, this allows LNP to be extended across the PSTN into IP networks. ENUM goes even further by enabling you to be reached wherever you are at with just one number by introducing the concept of an Address of Record (AOR). This is really nothing more than DNS NAPTR record technology. Imagine DNS being used for both virtual domains and LNP. For more details, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2916.txt and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3482.txt.
With SIP VoIP hardphones dropping to $65 each (see http://www.sipphone.com/tiki-index.php?page=Order
I would also like to see the Baby Bell monopoly on the TCAP PSAP records for 911 services come to an end. There are much cheaper, flexible and more capable IP based technologies out there that need to replace existing PSAP mechanisms. After all, 9-11 2001 and the Northeast Blackout of 2003 should has taught us something about the PSTN.
FYI,
...
Nothing like a marketors spinning a disinformation web. Get real. No proprietary protocol has a chance at replacing Telecom infrastructure! What has the PSTN and Internet technologies taught us in the last 20 years.
Take it from a person that has attended two SIPit (SIP interoperability testing events), SIP is most definitely it!!! Over 10 Billion US VC dollars were invested in NGN VoIPtechnologies in 2000. The SIP Tsunami will strike hard in 2005. There are over 100 companies that already sell SIP products or have SIP products in the pipeline. There is plenty of SIP Open Source code:
1) iptel.org
2) vovida.org
3) sourceforge.net/projects/resiprocate/
4) www.siptrex.com/downloads/
5) dns.antd.nist.gov/proj/iptel/
The IETF has done a splendid job developing the SIP specification (RFC 3261) as a true international standard that will become as ubiquitous as HTTP and SMTP in the coming years.
There is plenty of room for innovation to occur using SIP technology. It is after all a third generation Web technology that uses P2P technology at its core. I would dare to say within two years SIP technology will cause great convergence in the following market spaces: Telecom, Game, Grid Computing and Distributed M&S.
Don't waste any time with Skype. SIP is it!!!
Sincerely,
Skaht
From thermodynamics, we know entropy (a measure of randomness) typically increases except where there is life that creates order. Where there is order there is redundancy of information, which leads to better compression.
FYI,
Jeff Pulver is a great guy to network with in the SIP VoIP industry.
The German's also have a similar site to Jeff's at iptel.org. The iptel.org Web site appears to have over 65,000 accounts. They are working on SIP Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extentions (SIMPLE) server infrastructure that could give the Microsoft RTC a run for its money.
There are plenty of providers or carriers that provide SIP services here are a few.
Business Grade:
1) Worldcom
2) Webley
3) Denwa
Consumer Grade:
1) Delta Three
2) Vonage
Because SIP servers proxy and registration servers can be anywhere in the world CALEA can't be enforced at the server end. Thus, support for US CALEA laws would have to be provided by the ISP or carrier providing the broadband service. (Most of the SIP VoIP phones support or default to G.711 CODECs that consume 90 kilobits per second of bandwidth.)
I highly recommend using the Intertex IX66 firewall with SIP hard and softphones. Its OS is Linux and interoperates with a very large array of SIP products. (The ipDialog hard phones are also Linux-based.)
There is plenty of open source SIP server software on the Internet:
1) http://iptel.org/ - FhG Fokus spin off, written in C
2) http://www.vovida.org/ - really Cisco, written in C++
3) http://dns.antd.nist.gov/proj/iptel/ - The National Institute of Standards is to release Java JAIN v1.1 reference implementation shortly
4) http://www.siptrex.org/news/ - an IP Centrex framework using older NIST software from the University College London guys
Bye,
Skaht
The hottest CODEC technology coming out is called H.26l, which is a collaborative real-time technology like H.261, H.262 and MPEG-2. MPEG-4 is a streaming technology, which means it really is not meant for interactive VTC-like communications. Streaming technologies typically add more latency to gain efficiency and collaborative CODEC technologies emphasize timing constraints over efficiency for both encoding and decoding in real-time.
The last time streaming CODEC and collaborative CODEC technologies merged the technology was called MPEG-2. Satellite TV transmissions; cable TV, DVD, camcorders are all now based on MPEG-2 technology. The next time streaming and collaborative CODEC technologies merge it will be called H.26l. This is essentially a next generation hybrid of H.262 and MPEG-4.
I hope the Open Source development crowd won't loose sight of this fact while the current MPEG-4 media fog is quite thick. Because next generation IETF Session Initiated Protocol (RFC 3261) VoIP technologies will require truly open standards to make next generation IP telephony interoperable and thus immensely successful around the World. Streaming video technologies will be passé compared to collaborative video technologies.
Strong Open Source collaborative tools will allow Open Source developers to be incredibly efficient. The real issue is how much longer closed source developers will have access to better collaborative tools than Open Source developers. It is time for something more than free H.261 collaborative CODECs for the UNIXes.
According to a conversation I had with Robert Pepper, entities in Europe owning spectrum can't lease them like in the U.S. With 3G spectrum being so expensive in Europe, UWB could bypass the regulation issues that may take forever to to fix thus jumpstarting the 3G wireless efforts. No wonder why Intel is pushing 3G efforts, to sell more microprocessors.
within large U.S. enterprises with 3rd party providers. I am assuming these edge routers will be in closets anyways. Any other thoughts?
Cyber agents, guards, police, these analogies just won't quit. I am sensing more than the role of a cyber agent in this article. What is to prevent an excessive ease dropping on my private communications? This technology could be easily abused to gain an unlawful control of information to obviate a democracy from functioning like it was intended to. I would like to see a separation of powers for instituting its use from a very granular to coarse level of monitoring and/or control. This technology might be ready for fielding in three years but the developing acceptable policies for its use could take longer and may affect the overall architecture, thus delaying deployment even longer.
All right, "No central authority operates the agent", but the information for making decisions must be aggregated, a form of centralization. Granted the use of this information for command decisions may be decentralized, but the information aggregation process will susceptible to spoofing.
Also, man will be in the loop somehow. When the information is aggregated, the reaction times for responding to this higher level of information slows down considerably. Thus, the control can become stable. The time for tactical decision making with cyber technology will be to small for a human, but strategic decisions will always involve man.