North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Denial of service attacks apparently from UUNET Netblocks
- From: Jay R. Ashworth
- Date: Wed Oct 08 00:29:28 1997
On Tue, Oct 07, 1997 at 06:20:01PM -0700, Dalvenjah FoxFire wrote:
[ David Lesher:]
> > Just want to make sure all parties here do not think ANI == CNID.
> > They are different critters. You get CNID usually. Real time
> > ANI is available on 800 trunks, but at a cost.
> I realize this is probably something one learns in Telco 101, which I
> haven't taken, but if CNID == Caller ID, wouldn't ANI be *more* useful?
Sometimes. CNID bounces around with forwarded calls, as was pointed
out to me in private mail earlier today, whilst ANI will be from the
_last_ site in a forwarding chain -- since that's the only place an
INWATS subscriber is paying for a call from.
> Or does CNID report the number regardless of Caller-ID blocking on PRI
No, CNID is Caller-ID. Blocking is _supposed_ to be implemented by the
_terminating_ end office. If you receive your traffic over dedicated
trunks from an IXC, rather than a LEC, you're not _supposed_ to get
it... but I'd be unsurprised if some IXC's get this wrong.
I _would_ be surprised if many LEC's were blowing this.
> (I'm assuming that CNID == standard Caller-ID as it appears on POTS, and
> that ANI == the special service that 800-lines get that *always* reports
> the number, regardless of blocking..if I'm wrong, I'll accept the LART.)
You assume correctly.
Jay R. Ashworth email@example.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592