UKVoIPTalk.com

"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:lt3sl2t3urd9uu3koplpuo9147escg3htg@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
> <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Why is it dead end?[/color]
>
> why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an office PABX system,
> for example, or integrate it with a landline ?
>[/color]
How many home users will need and have PABX?
divoch

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:42:59 +0000, [email]wikedhumor@large.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>How can it be a dead end when I can dial BT and other landlines
>free everyday?[/color]

draw me the road map for progressing Skype to more complex uses.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

Recently, divoch popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|
|"Paul" <nomailforme@polog40.org.uk> wrote in message
|news:455ddd48$0$627$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
|> divoch wrote:
|>> "Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
|>> news:5e1jl293vtpmjvkqokf1mu7tsqrkpd444e@4ax.com...
|>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
|>>>
|>>>> Skype works well and its free
|>>> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.
|>>
|>> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem
|>> to give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any
|>> service.
|>> divoch.
|>
|> Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
|> per minute to use Skype?
|>
|
|I envisage that my main use for these services in not so distant future
|will be
|making calls either using Internet cafes or even better using free Wi-Fi
|hotspots
|while travelling.
|Which is better for this use now and what is your guess for the future?
|divoch
|
Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
administrator.
The system model (P2P) relies on "Supernodes" to help other users do NAT
traversal. Supernodes are elected *automatically* by the application
when it detects a good broadband connection and a public IP on the
machine (this alone is enough to make me ban and bin it).
Result: if you are on a 2+ Mb broadband connection with a public IP,
you're acting as a "bridge" between many OTHER Skype users for ALL the
IP traffic your connection can bear when it's idle.
And your capped connection eats up all your monthly quote in a day.
Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
cracked, hence not secure.
Least but not last, using the pinhole punched by Skype through UPnP
routers, malicious traffic can "piggyback" and slip through.
Is that enough? Because there's more... but probably is this too much
already.

--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped

"Puffnstuff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ogmrl2lkplof1obg5hnbapvld90qtjtpvf@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:24:33 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[/color]

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Skype's overriding disadvantage is that it isn't SIP or
> > IAX compatible so can't be used with an ATA. You have
> > to have a computer running.
> >
> > Ivor
> >[/color]
> No you don't
> It can be used with mobiles[/color]

But not with ordinary phones and an ATA as with normal VoIP.
[color=blue]
> Nob[/color]

You said it..!

Ivor

"divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:77s7h.17834$yz3.12141@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net[color=blue]
> "Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in
> message news:lt3sl2t3urd9uu3koplpuo9147escg3htg@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
> > <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Why is it dead end?[/color]
> >
> > why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an
> > office PABX system, for example, or integrate it with a
> > landline ?[/color]
> How many home users will need and have PABX?[/color]

Plenty, and some of us even have our own network..!

[url]www.ckts.info[/url]

Ivor

Phil Thompson wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
> <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Why is it dead end?[/color]
>
> why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an office PABX system,
> for example, or integrate it with a landline ?[/color]

No, probably not - but if you're asking questions like that, then you've
missed the point of Skype.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
08:33:13 up 24 days, 16:19, 2 users, load average: 3.00, 3.01, 3.05
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

ßødincµs²°°° wrote:
[color=blue]
> Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
> administrator.[/color]

How is Skype a security hole? Surely Skype only exploits existing security
holes in your network?
[color=blue]
> Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
> cracked, hence not secure.[/color]

So if I send you a packet capture of a Skype conversation, you'll be able to
decrypt it and send it back to me as, say, an MP3 file?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
08:34:20 up 24 days, 16:20, 2 users, load average: 3.00, 3.00, 3.05
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:05:23 GMT, "divoch"
<divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>How many home users will need and have PABX?[/color]

that was an example, and the answer is more than zero. This discussion
is not confined to home users.

How many Skype users have come on here and similar places saying "I
don't want to have to use the PC to make phone calls any longer" or "I
want to answer Skype and normal phone calls on all my phone
extensions" - quite a lot.

Skype is fine for what it is, but other options have greater potential
and more choice so people should think it through and decide if they
prefer a monopoly to a market.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:34:03 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig> wrote:
[color=blue]
> then you've
>missed the point of Skype.[/color]

it has a point ? What does it do that couldn't be done before it
arrived ?

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster [url]http://www.tglsoft.de/[/url]
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"ßodincls2°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc86c27a3e4d9b9896de@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Recently, divoch popped out over the fence
> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
> |
> |"Paul" <nomailforme@polog40.org.uk> wrote in message
> |news:455ddd48$0$627$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> |> divoch wrote:
> |>> "Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> |>> news:5e1jl293vtpmjvkqokf1mu7tsqrkpd444e@4ax.com...
> |>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
> |>>>
> |>>>> Skype works well and its free
> |>>> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.
> |>>
> |>> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not
> seem
> |>> to give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any
> |>> service.
> |>> divoch.
> |>
> |> Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
> |> per minute to use Skype?
> |>
> |
> |I envisage that my main use for these services in not so distant future
> |will be
> |making calls either using Internet cafes or even better using free Wi-Fi
> |hotspots
> |while travelling.
> |Which is better for this use now and what is your guess for the future?
> |divoch
> |
> Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
> administrator.
> The system model (P2P) relies on "Supernodes" to help other users do NAT
> traversal. Supernodes are elected *automatically* by the application
> when it detects a good broadband connection and a public IP on the
> machine (this alone is enough to make me ban and bin it).
> Result: if you are on a 2+ Mb broadband connection with a public IP,
> you're acting as a "bridge" between many OTHER Skype users for ALL the
> IP traffic your connection can bear when it's idle.[/color]

Extent of my knowledge does not allow me to contradict your ascertions

[color=blue]
> And your capped connection eats up all your monthly quote in a day.[/color]
Not capped
[color=blue]
> Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
> cracked, hence not secure.[/color]
Is that better or worse than for standard SIP?
[color=blue]
> Least but not last, using the pinhole punched by Skype through UPnP
> routers, malicious traffic can "piggyback" and slip through.
> Is that enough? Because there's more... but probably is this too much
> already.[/color]

Even if everything you say is correct these are the issues majority of
ordinary users will not know about and will not concern themselves with
and so they probably will not decide "whose future is bright"
divoch