UKVoIPTalk.com

How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?

I've managed using a router without it until now - is it just a way of
selling me something that I don't need?

Hence what's the threat/risk, if any, to:

- my router h/w?
- my BB service

I'm a VoIP user and there's a trade-off in choice of ATA/router if SPI
is something I should consider.

TIA

In article <3vq2s39cfucomc2uhca4pq7t0vib0gh459@4ax.com>,
Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
>How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?[/color]

Not at all.
[color=blue]
>I've managed using a router without it until now - is it just a way of
>selling me something that I don't need?[/color]

Probably.
[color=blue]
>Hence what's the threat/risk, if any, to:
>
> - my router h/w?[/color]

Do you really think that someone could do something from the outside to cause
physical damage?
[color=blue]
> - my BB service[/color]

SPI or not, if someone decides they don't like you, they can cause huge
quantities of data to flow your way and no amount of filtering or
firewalling at your end of the bit of string will make any difference.
You can stop it going through the router (NAT alone ought to do that),
but not stop it getting to the router, and by the time it's reached your
router, it's too late to do anything about it other than throw it away -
it's already clocked up "wire time".
[color=blue]
>I'm a VoIP user and there's a trade-off in choice of ATA/router if SPI
>is something I should consider.[/color]

You want (a) a good ISP - none of your 9.99 a month rubbish, and (b) a
router/firewall that can do outbound QoS.

Gordon

Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
[color=blue]
> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?[/color]

Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to other
chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a decision
for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
be of no interest to the user.

Graham Murray wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>[color=green]
>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?[/color]
>
> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the
> Serial Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are
> wired to other chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used
> should be a decision for the hardware designer and be of no interest
> to the user, unless
> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
> be of no interest to the user.[/color]

SPI is to do with internet packet inspection, is it not???

Gaz

"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...[color=blue]
> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>[color=green]
>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?[/color]
>
> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
> Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to other
> chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a decision
> for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
> be of no interest to the user.[/color]

I think we are talking about Stateful Packet Inspection here,
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall[/url]

--
Graham

%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:56:46 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...[color=green]
>> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?[/color]
>>
>> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
>> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
>> Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to other
>> chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a decision
>> for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
>> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
>> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
>> be of no interest to the user.[/color]
>
>I think we are talking about Stateful Packet Inspection here,
>[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall[/url][/color]

We are indeed.

Gordon Henderson wrote:
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> I'm a VoIP user and there's a trade-off in choice of ATA/router if SPI
>> is something I should consider.[/color]
>
> You want (a) a good ISP - none of your 9.99 a month rubbish, and (b) a
> router/firewall that can do outbound QoS.
>
> Gordon[/color]

Which ISPs support outbound qos. I thought QoS at the moment was only
really handled in your LAN.

"Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> SPI is to do with internet packet inspection, is it not???[/color]

Google would seem to indicate otherwise. The first hit on the query
'SPI' returns the Wikipedia article for 'Serial Peripheral Interface'
(an inter-chip bus), which is also what SPI means to me. None of the
hits returned on the first 5 pages use SPI in the context of packet
inspection - which implies that that is a minority usage.

Graham Murray wrote:[color=blue]
> "Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> SPI is to do with internet packet inspection, is it not???[/color]
>
> Google would seem to indicate otherwise. The first hit on the query
> 'SPI' returns the Wikipedia article for 'Serial Peripheral Interface'
> (an inter-chip bus), which is also what SPI means to me. None of the
> hits returned on the first 5 pages use SPI in the context of packet
> inspection - which implies that that is a minority usage.
>
>[/color]
Yebbut, in the context or routers.

If I was talking about a verruca problem on my foot, I wouldn't expect
you to think I was discussing the imperial length measurement a foot.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:08:22 +0000, Mark <markincambs@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:56:46 -0000, "Graham." <me@privacy.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:878x1aa38m.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...[color=darkred]
>>> Steve <steev_l@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> How necessary is SPI in reality, for a home router?
>>>
>>> Would you even know is a router has SPI unless you look at the part
>>> numbers of the chips on the board and see if a) They support the Serial
>>> Peripheral Interface and b) that the appropriate pins are wired to other
>>> chip(s) which also support SPI. Whether SPI is used should be a decision
>>> for the hardware designer and be of no interest to the user, unless
>>> the SPI bus is brought to a connector for an add-on board - but even
>>> then unless the user is going to design his own add-on board this will
>>> be of no interest to the user.[/color]
>>
>>I think we are talking about Stateful Packet Inspection here,
>>[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall[/url][/color]
>
>We are indeed.[/color]
I always use
http:\\[url]www.acronymfinder.com[/url]
84 definitions of SPI there.
Stateful Packet Inspection (firewall based protocol) links to:-
[url]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Stateful+Packet+Inspection[/url]

---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---