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 > > >