Florin Iucha wrote:

>On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 11:18:54AM -0500, BN wrote:
>  
>
>>If I was AT&T and I really want to create a problem for Vonage users, I 
>>wouldn't NAT the packets. Its too noticeable.
>>
>>I would set up some sort of linux bridge and randomly discard or hold 
>>(queue) UDP packets for random intervals, so each side gets a garbled 
>>mess of out of order RTP-UDP packets. This would create a lot of echo, 
>>delay and swirlies in the phone.
>>
>>It would make you think that is not AT&T's direct fault, but maybe it 
>>could be Vonage's.
>>
>>You could probably do that with all of the unwanted ports and protocols. 
>>(Basically everything but HTTP, Email, and Instant Messaging)
>>    
>>
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^
>                            Those use TCP.
>
Yeah, but you drop enough of them, TCP will scale back its send rate. 
Effectively limiting your bandwidth and creating a big stink.

>
>  
>
>>Hey, maybe I should build it and sell the service to AT&T. Just Kidding!
>>    
>>
>
>And b) trim thy posts...
>
>florin
>
>  
>