Denial of service attacks apparently from UUNET Netblocks
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Wed Oct 8 02:50:44 UTC 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 jra at baylink.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
More information about the NANOG