Subject: RE: [IPTEL] urgent: ip telephony traffic model

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:33:18 -0400

That discussion is whether address restrictions provide an
adequate Virtual PRIVATE Network.  Bellovin et. al. suggest
that privacy is only assured with encryption.  I agree with
him; VPNs by address restriction is not sufficiently private.
If you want Virtual PRIVATE (IP) Networks, use IPSEC.

This does not deal with whether it makes any sense to
understand traffic patterns of multimedia streams and/or
influence the routing of such streams. 

BTW, while I really do want to discuss these issues, it's
not in the IPTEL charter.  Of course, it's not in any
charter, mostly by design.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: 'Jerry'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [IPTEL] urgent: ip telephony traffic model
> 
> 
> We have company in this discussion about building paths 
> across the net.
> 
> See "Experts call MPLS bad for 'Net".
> VPNs based on Multi-protocol Label Switching said to be 
> risky. Backbone
> mgmt. challenges also cited. By CAROLYN DUFFY MARSAN Network World,
> 08/06/01
> 
> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2001/0806mpls.html
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPTEL mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel
> 

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel