UKVoIPTalk.com

"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:l6ktl2t6fu0geu9sk0t4mj6rh286jkq131@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:05:23 GMT, "divoch"
> <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> 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.
>[/color]
The need to use PC is/was a nuisance but even that is no longer the case.
You can use new Wi-Fi devices either on your home network or public
hotspots. Even if it has not been done yet is there anything fundamental
that
would prevent existence of devices that would allow
answering a normal phone call and Skype call on all extensions?
[color=blue]
> 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.
>[/color]

I have no vested interest in any particular system, I am just trying to find
out what is the best for my needs which are no more
demanding than making cheap calls home or to friends from home and
from anywhere around the world. .

As with many things it is not always the best or most flexible system
that gets a widespread use, but it is often a simpler or less
expensive system with better marketing. Common protocol to an
ordinary user is of no advantage if it is not used to its full potential, if
for example, service providers do not make interoperability transparent
etc.

I do not know what the numbers are but they count. Should there be,
for example, 10x more Skype users than on any single VOIP system
then it is a great advantage to their users because they can call each other
free and do it very simply.

divoch

On 2006-11-18, Phil Thompson <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:42:59 +0000, [email]wikedhumor@large.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
>>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.[/color]

Would Niklas Zennstrom's suffice?

[url]http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=716&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdblog[/url]

That's over a year old? Not detailed enough? Then the 4th May 2006 eBay
Analyst Day pdf at

[url]http://investor.ebay.com/index.cfm[/url]

might be helpful.

Brian.

On 2006-11-18, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
> administrator.[/color]

Given an input to the decision making process, argue for not installing
it. If you are in charge, don't install it.
[color=blue]
> 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).[/color]

Skype encourages the notion that sharing is good. But behind NAT there
is no sharing. Being a supernode involves a degree of selflessness.
[color=blue]
> 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]

Doesn't Skype enforce a maximum to the traffic a supernode can take?
[color=blue]
> And your capped connection eats up all your monthly quote in a day.[/color]

Some figures would help here. The statement seems a little extreme.
[color=blue]
> Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
> cracked, hence not secure.[/color]

Really? Was a security alert issued?
[color=blue]
> Least but not last, using the pinhole punched by Skype through UPnP
> routers, malicious traffic can "piggyback" and slip through.[/color]

UPnP is a mystery to me. Is this piggybacking inherent in the nature of
Skype or due a flawed implementation of UPnP?
[color=blue]
> Is that enough? Because there's more... but probably is this too much
> already.[/color]

Clarifying some of the points you have already made before moving on to
giving more information might be better.

Brian.

On 2006-11-18, Phil Thompson <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:34:03 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 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 ?[/color]

The invention of the horseless carriage probably attracted similar
comment.

Brian.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:03:05 GMT, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>|
>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.[/color]


You're a nerd arent you..........an anorak...........

Go on admit it

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:57:52 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:77s7h.17834$yz3.12141@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net[color=green]
>> "Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> message news:lt3sl2t3urd9uu3koplpuo9147escg3htg@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
>> > <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Why is it dead end?
>> >
>> > 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..![/color]

Yeah, anoraks and nerds with no life.

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:28:06 +0000, Phil Thompson
<phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:34:03 GMT, alexd <look@my.sig> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 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[/color]

Well you didn't need an entire newsgroup and a collection of techie
anorak nerds to get it working

"Ken" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:iau2m296e1e48uns5bp7oq4d2g3bfo6p9g@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:57:52 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
> > "divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:77s7h.17834$yz3.12141@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net[/color][/color]

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > How many home users will need and have PABX?[/color]
> >
> > Plenty, and some of us even have our own network..![/color]
>
> Yeah, anoraks and nerds with no life.[/color]

Ah, the "I don't get it so I'll rubbish it" response.

BTW what's wrong with an anorak..? A very useful garment when the weather
turns nasty IME.

Ivor

Recently, Ken popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|You're a nerd arent you..........an anorak...........
|
|Go on admit it
|
Nope, I know just my bits, and don't want to hop on the bandwagon
"because it's free" or "because it's easy".
Nothing in life is free, wake up, little boy!

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

Recently, alexd popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|ßødincµs²°°° wrote:
|
|> Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
|> administrator.
|
|How is Skype a security hole? Surely Skype only exploits existing security
|holes in your network?

If you have the knowledge to understand what I said, you can see it.
If you don't, go on... probably your PCs are already ridden with all the
avaliable nasties.

|> Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
|> cracked, hence not secure.
|
|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?
|
You can do it yourself, as you are used to.

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