Post #66,146
12/2/02 2:02:55 PM
|
Question about IP vs. POTS
Heard an interview with a guy from SANS on the radio recently. He said that currently any computer on the Internet can directly address any other computer on the internet. He said that for security reasons, that would have to be changed, the same way the phone system was re-engineered 15 years ago. Before then, any phone could directly address any other phone but that's no longer true.
While he may have been oversimplifying for the sake of the general radio audience, "every computer on the internet" can not directly address any other computer on the internet. Systems behind firewalls or proxies, servers in performance clusters, etc., already can not generally be directly addressed.
What is the phone system doing to segment the network that IP doesn't already support? Is he oversimplifying for the sake of the audience? What am I missing here?
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #66,172
12/2/02 3:18:39 PM
|
how phone calls work
you pickup line onhook is received and you get dial tone
you dial a number
an ss7 message at the closest stp to you is generated to locate the other phone and see if it is busy
an stp on the far end, checks the line finding it not busy
an ss7 message is passed back to your stp to let you here a ring on your line and it generates a ring on the far end
the far end picks up and the route(circuit) between the 2 lines are connected.
when you hang up the stp sends an ss7 message to the far stp to hangup he call
there is a whole lot more to it but that is the basics of the AIN
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
|
Post #66,176
12/2/02 3:23:24 PM
12/2/02 3:25:12 PM
|
Gawd - are people really this stupid?
That is, no, you're not missing anything. Who the F was being interviewed? Someone from the Shrub orchard?
-drl
Edited by deSitter
Dec. 2, 2002, 03:25:12 PM EST
|
Post #66,190
12/2/02 4:16:52 PM
|
Can't find a reference
Too much googling for this, and no luck. And of course I already deleted the original note, which would have told me what day I heard the interview.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #66,195
12/2/02 4:30:01 PM
|
Re: Can't find a reference
Whoever it was, his real bitch is that IP is a connection-based protocol. Well, good fucking luck finding an alternative, buddy!
-drl
|
Post #66,282
12/2/02 10:07:12 PM
|
Re: Question about IP vs. POTS
drewk wrote:
Heard an interview with a guy from SANS on the radio recently. He said that currently any computer on the Internet can directly address any other computer on the Internet.
If you construe the phrase "on the Internet" to mean "possesses a valid routable IP address and accepts forwarded packets of some type", then the above is true in a strictly tautological sense. That is, it's true by definition, but doesn't actually convey any informational content.
He said that for security reasons, that would have to be changed, the same way the phone system was re-engineered 15 years ago.
The pronouncement is simplistic, useless, and fatuous. But hey, it's from the SANS Institute, so that's what one expects.
What is the phone system doing to segment the network that IP doesn't already support?
Nada. Rein du tout. It's all frames over an ATM backbone.
These are not the semantic contents we're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #66,333
12/3/02 1:12:02 AM
|
no I think he was talking about the AIN
Nada. Rein du tout. It's all frames over an ATM backbone. not ed zachery it is databases, intelligent swiches over a 56k connection everywhere. The statement while true is like saying the internet is all frames over an atm backbone while not quite mentioning dns, hierarchies etc. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
|
Post #66,343
12/3/02 1:50:58 AM
|
Re: no I think he was talking about the AIN
not ed zachery it is databases, intelligent swiches over a 56k connection everywhere. The statement while true is like saying the internet is all frames over an atm backbone while not quite mentioning dns, hierarchies etc.
It is obvious we are somehow talking at cross-purposes. Use or non-use of AIN/IN-based technology is really not relevant to the point the SANS-institute weenie apparently was trying to make about the Internet in analogy to switched digital telephony. But then, the SANS guy (probably) really didn't have anything specific in mind, anyway.
Unless, of course, you're seriously trying to allege you think the SANS guy was claiming some intelligent services-programming model similar to AIN is likely to be superimposed on the 'Net in the near future, in which case he was simply wrong and/or flippin' nuts.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #66,384
12/3/02 10:07:23 AM
|
wrong/flipping nuts would be the correct answer
SANS guys with a few exceptions like Norfolk etc are cheerleaders not technicians IMHO having attended a few sessions here and there.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
Opera was the television of the nineteenth century:loud, vulgar and garish with plots that could only be called infantile. "Pendergast"
|
Post #66,614
12/4/02 10:36:07 AM
|
That was my impression
He seemed to by suggesting that a pretty radical rethinking of basic internet protocols was both desirable and inevitable.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
