OT: Wireless Network Strength Dependent On Wired Network?

[Neil]

Okay, a small, offtopic question. (I figured you guys were a far more
reliable source than my local ${electronics_store} salesperson...)

Consider the following setup:
internet pipe -> wired network -> (wireless router) wireless network ->
computer1, computer2

Suppose the signal coming in on the pipe is good, but the signal
deteriorates rapidly in wired network (old & bad wiring). Now, the two
computers are connected via the wireless network only. computer1 has a great
connection (it's in the same room as the wireless router), but computer2 is
far away and drops the wireless connection frequently.

Now, a former electrical engineer is claiming that if we improve the wired
network so that the signal comes across better, then computer2 won't drop
the wireless connection so frequently. (He says that the signal emitted by
the wireless router will be improved by feeding it a better source signal.)

I argue that there are two separate signals: the internet connection signal
coming in on the pipe, and then the wireless network signal being emitted
from the wireless router; and their strengths are independent. In other
words, if we improve the wiring, the wireless signal will not get any
stronger.

So...basically, who's right? (Or are neither of us?) Any thoughts, comments,
corrections?

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Michael Thomas]

Sean Donelan wrote:

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:

1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP 
port' in my previous comment ;-)


Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too, 
clueless expands to fill any void.  And using non-standard things like 
2525 only lead to more confusion for customers later when they try 
someone else's non-standard choice, e.g. port 26 or 24 or 5252 and 
wonder why those don't work.


On the other hand, why don't modern mail user agents and mail transfer 
agents come configured to use MSA port 587 by default for message 
submission instead of making customers remember anything? RFC 2476 was 
published over a decade ago, software developers should have caught up 
to it by now.  Imagine if the little box in Outlook and Exchange had 
the MSA port already filled in, and you only needed to change it for 
legacy things.
Better yet would be for the MUA to probe for the "best" configuration. 
Setting up mail is a
royal PITA even if you know what you're doing. And a near death 
experience if you don't.


  Mike

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Steven King]

Most MTAs don't come preconfigured with port 587 either. It is amazing
how many people/organizations go with the "if it isn't broke, don't fix
it" mentality, even though it clearly needs to be revised and something
new needs to be done/supported. Email needs to be revamped on a larger
scale than just adding standards.

Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
>> 1. Customers remember it more easily
>> 2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP
>> port' in my previous comment ;-)
>
> Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too,
> clueless expands to fill any void.  And using non-standard things like
> 2525 only lead to more confusion for customers later when they try
> someone else's non-standard choice, e.g. port 26 or 24 or 5252 and
> wonder why those don't work.
>
> On the other hand, why don't modern mail user agents and mail transfer
> agents come configured to use MSA port 587 by default for message
> submission instead of making customers remember anything? RFC 2476 was
> published over a decade ago, software developers should have caught up
> to it by now.  Imagine if the little box in Outlook and Exchange had
> the MSA port already filled in, and you only needed to change it for
> legacy things.
>

-- 
Steve King

Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc.
Cisco Certified Network Associate
CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional
CompTIA A+ Certified Professional

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:

1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP port' in 
my previous comment ;-)


Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too, clueless 
expands to fill any void.  And using non-standard things like 2525 only 
lead to more confusion for customers later when they try someone else's 
non-standard choice, e.g. port 26 or 24 or 5252 and wonder why those don't 
work.


On the other hand, why don't modern mail user agents and mail transfer 
agents come configured to use MSA port 587 by default for message 
submission instead of making customers remember anything? RFC 2476 was 
published over a decade ago, software developers should have caught up to 
it by now.  Imagine if the little box in Outlook and Exchange had the MSA 
port already filled in, and you only needed to change it for legacy 
things.

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Paul M Moriarty]

AT&T is the major one that I know of that is still enforcing this  
policy.
But they said they can unblock port 25 upon request. I am not sure  
how easy

it is.


It's trivial. A web form. You get the link when you try to send mail  
to port 25 anywhere else. At least with Yahoo/SBC dsl.


I got the business class DSL from AT&T and no such nonsense exists.


Same here with U-Verse and a /29 of static IP's.  No blocking since  
Day 1.

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 20 Jun, 2009

Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  288799
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:  137405
Deaggregation factor:  2.10
Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 143140
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 31502
Prefixes per ASN:  9.17
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   27382
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   13343
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4120
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 91
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   3.6
Max AS path length visible:  24
Max AS path prepend of ASN (12026)   22
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   451
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 131
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:177
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  49
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:847
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2052918096
Equivalent to 122 /8s, 93 /16s and 11 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   55.4
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   64.1
Percentage of available address space allocated:   86.4
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   77.4
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  142968

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:68732
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   24540
APNIC Deaggregation factor:2.80
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:   68133
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:30927
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:3666
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   18.59
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:999
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:565
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:3.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 18
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  454152304
Equivalent to 27 /8s, 17 /16s and 208 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 84.6

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079
APNIC Address Blocks58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8,
   113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8,
   120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8,
   180/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8,
   219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:123570
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:66000
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.87
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   124331
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 51877
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:13046
ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 9.53
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:5010
ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1278
Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.3
Max ARIN Region AS path length visible:  24
Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet:  1009647680
Equivalent to 60 /8s, 46 /16s and 0 /24s
Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 194.1

ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106
(pre-ERX allocations)  2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829,

RE: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Eric J Esslinger]

I am the ISP, and we currently don't. However, I inherited this setup and have 
been slowly fixing glaring holes (those are fairly well gone now) and not so 
glaring one.  When our new firewall gets in, I will be rolling in port 25 
blocks on dynamic IP addresses. The static ips will be unfiltered. Customers 
may send outbound mail through our SMTP server, or connect via alternate ports 
to their SMTP server.




From: Zhiyun Qian [zhiy...@umich.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.

I wonder which ISPs are still doing so. I know comcast has been doing that
but they cancelled it after many complaints. It seems to be the same case
for Verizon.

AT&T is the major one that I know of that is still enforcing this policy.
But they said they can unblock port 25 upon request. I am not sure how easy
it is.

One simple way to test if your ISP is blocking outgoing port 25 is to try:
"telnet mx2.hotmail.com 25" or "telnet gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com 25". If
the connection fails, it could be due to the fact your ISP is blocking
outgoing port 25, although it can also be other reasons such as local
firewall configuration. Can someone perform the test and let me know result
if possible? Thanks a lot!

Regards.
-Zhiyun


This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by 
others is strictly prohibited.

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Tony Finch]

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
> a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 connections
> through some sort of lame proxy that connects you to your intended host,
> but strips the AUTH field out of the EHLO response from the remote
> submission server ...

Grr. Someone needs to whack them with the clue bat.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.

OT: Someone is parroting Randy

[Frank Bulk]

 "'My competitors are welcome to them. They won't earn anything on them
either."

Says Marco Visser, head of KPN's mobile services division, in response to
the press' inquiry whether their elimination of free phones for
pay-as-you-go would result in an outflow of customers

http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=28943

&email=html 

 

RE: Wireless bridge

[Patrick Shoemaker]

Peter, to follow up on a few of your RF questions here:

The idea behind the Fresnel zones is that objects (larger than one 
wavelength, a few centimeters at the frequencies we're dealing with 
here) within the zones will reflect the incoming radio wave from the 
transmitting radio. As seen by the receiver, there will be two signals- 
one coming directly from the transmitting antenna, and the reflection 
coming from the object in the Fresnel zone. The reflected signal, having 
a longer overall path length, will be slightly out of phase compared to 
the direct wave, and will destructively interfere with the direct wave, 
lowering the overall received power level seen by the receiving radio. 
This is called multipath interference. Therefore, unless you're using 
very high gain antennas (large parabolic dishes) with high directivity, 
you won't gain anything by pointing them at the sky or away from the 
object in the Fresnel zone. You'll lose more signal by mis-aiming the 
antennas than you will lose from the multipath interference.


Regarding antenna polarization, your flat panel antennas are certainly 
polarized and must be oriented in the same polarization at each end.


Finally, if you have a way to check the received power level at your 
existing radios, you will want to adjust the transmitter output power of 
each end so that the received power is within a reasonable range. 
Generally speaking, for a link of that distance, you should aim for 
something in the -60 dBm range. Anything hotter than a -50 and you start 
to get into front-end overload territory, and anything weaker than a -70 
and you're beginning to run on thin fade margins.


Also, I disagree that shielded Ethernet cable is unnecessary. For the 
very low additional cost of shielded outdoor cat-5, it's well worth your 
effort if you're running new cable. Of course every installation is 
different, but why risk ethernet errors due to some large air 
conditioner or something on the roof spewing EMI?


Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com



Message: 12
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:46:08 -0400
From: "Peter Boone" 
Subject: RE: Wireless bridge
To: 
Message-ID: <23ab01c9f07f$b7aa6480$26ff2d...@com>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

OK, from reading all the excellent feedback I've got on and off list I've
attempted to compile a "quick" summary of findings/ideas/products so far.

- RouterBoard is no good for this type of application.

- Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
(outdoor rated cat5, shielded I assume), lightning suppression for the PoE
(properly grounded), and ensure the mast is properly grounded.

- Get off the 2.4 GHz range. Move up to 5. As for licensed vs. unlicensed,
I'm getting mixed input. I'm fairly certain that if the price is right and
the frequency is 5GHz+, it won't be a factor. Also, I'll be very glad to
separate the bridge from the client access points so that allows for more
options. Every solution at this range can easily do 20+ Mbps so throughput
is no longer a factor.

- Products that support ARQ are highly recommended.

- I'm hearing the same products mentioned over and over:
- Motorola
- Ubiquiti
- Aironet (Cisco)
- Aruba
A number of individuals recommended products from other brands at low cost
that meet these mentioned requirements too.


I'm not going to bother with a spectrum analyzer. In the current
implementation we tried channels 1, 6 and 11 for a few days at a time and
found 1 to be the most reliable. Done. At this point an analyzer will tell
me what I already suspect: there's a problem.

I've researched the Fresnel zones and calculated out a few things with rough
numbers and worst case. For one, the Fresnel zone is disrupted most if the
obstruction is closer to the endpoints (e.g. antennas). In this case, this
is fine as the antenna are mounted at the outermost corner of the buildings
as close as possible to the other buildings, approximately 3 floors in the
air. Other buildings become a factor near the middle. Based on channel 1's
wavelength of 0.12438 m, and assuming 1 km apart (for simplicity sake. It's
actually less), the Fresnel zone is largest in the center at approx 5.6 m
radius. That could definitely be obstructed by rooftops, I'll have to take
another look though. This radius cuts in half when the frequency is doubled,
thus more evidence in favour of the 5 GHz+ range. Cool. Or we could just go
with a good line of sight optical solution but they look too expensive, and
this area can have very unforgiving fog/wind to disrupt things further. What
if we tilt each existing antenna up towards the sky 10-20 degrees? Please
correct me if I'm wrong.

The current antennas are plates. I'm pretty sure they are polarized. I used
to have a product sheet on these but a Google search doesn't turn up any
useful results anymore (SmartAnt PC

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Jun 19 21:13:57 2009 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
12-06-09294158  183382
13-06-09294150  183283
14-06-09293984  183407
15-06-09294154  183329
16-06-09294209  183622
17-06-09294401  183709
18-06-09294664  183895
19-06-09295035  183967


AS Summary
 31610  Number of ASes in routing system
 13435  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  4284  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
  89739520  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS27064: DNIC-ASBLK-27032-27159 - DoD Network Information Center


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 19Jun09 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 294947   183929   11101837.6%   All ASes

AS6389  4284  343 394192.0%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.
AS4323  4277 1778 249958.4%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.
AS4766  1814  520 129471.3%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS17488 1601  310 129180.6%   HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over
   Cable Internet
AS1785  1694  662 103260.9%   AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
   Communications, Inc.
AS4755  1214  194 102084.0%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP
AS22773 1064   67  99793.7%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.
AS8151  1466  585  88160.1%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS19262 1015  232  78377.1%   VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon
   Internet Services Inc.
AS8452   987  275  71272.1%   TEDATA TEDATA
AS18566 1062  423  63960.2%   COVAD - Covad Communications
   Co.
AS6478  1376  749  62745.6%   ATT-INTERNET3 - AT&T WorldNet
   Services
AS18101  750  167  58377.7%   RIL-IDC Reliance Infocom Ltd
   Internet Data Centre,
AS4804   679  107  57284.2%   MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD
AS17908  674  137  53779.7%   TCISL Tata Communications
AS11492 1116  588  52847.3%   CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC.
AS9498   639  141  49877.9%   BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.
AS2706   536   44  49291.8%   PI-HK Pacnet Internet (Hong
   Kong) Limited
AS17676  564   80  48485.8%   GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS7029   601  121  48079.9%   WINDSTREAM - Windstream
   Communications Inc
AS24560  718  241  47766.4%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services
AS4808   641  165  47674.3%   CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
   network China169 Beijing
   Province Network
AS4134   890  418  47253.0%   CHINANET-BACKBONE
   No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS22047  599  129  47078.5%   VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.
AS7018  1501 1046  45530.3%   ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet
   Services
AS7545   819  382  43753.4%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
   Pty Ltd
AS6517   673  246  42763.4%   RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance
   Globalcom Services, Inc
AS9443   514   90  42482.5%   INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
   Telecommunications
AS7011   981  567  41442.2%   FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
   Frontier Communications of
  

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Jun-09 -to- 18-Jun-09 (8 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS919883410  7.5% 842.5 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 2 - AS34744   30544  2.7% 161.6 -- GVM SC GVM SISTEM 2003 SRL
 3 - AS33783   21402  1.9% 171.2 -- EEPAD
 4 - AS30890   15475  1.4%  29.4 -- EVOLVA Evolva Telecom
 5 - AS21491   11941  1.1% 398.0 -- UTL-ON-LINE UTL On-line is RF 
broadband ISP in Uganda - Africa
 6 - AS47408   11550  1.0% 825.0 -- MANDARIN-AS Mandarin WIMAX 
Sicilia SpA
 7 - AS17974   10815  1.0%  12.1 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT 
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
 8 - AS7738 8436  0.8%  21.3 -- Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A.
 9 - AS201157779  0.7%   7.0 -- CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter 
Communications
10 - AS8452 7678  0.7%   8.3 -- TEDATA TEDATA
11 - AS293727317  0.7% 118.0 -- SFR-NETWORK SFR
12 - AS2697 6463  0.6%  99.4 -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and 
Research Network
13 - AS358056432  0.6%  17.9 -- UTG-AS United Telecom AS
14 - AS160916373  0.6%6373.0 -- SATEC SATEC AS
15 - AS270466193  0.6%  38.5 -- DNIC-ASBLK-27032-27159 - DoD 
Network Information Center
16 - AS5050 6091  0.6%3045.5 -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh 
Supercomputing Center
17 - AS4855 6048  0.5% 104.3 -- PI-ID-AS-AP Pacific Link 
Indonesia
18 - AS290496012  0.5%  19.0 -- DELTA-TELECOM-AS Delta Telecom 
LTD.
19 - AS255465853  0.5%5853.0 -- BROOKLANDCOMP-AS Brookland 
Computer Services
20 - AS6389 5706  0.5%   2.7 -- BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - 
BellSouth.net Inc.


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS160916373  0.6%6373.0 -- SATEC SATEC AS
 2 - AS255465853  0.5%5853.0 -- BROOKLANDCOMP-AS Brookland 
Computer Services
 3 - AS5050 6091  0.6%3045.5 -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh 
Supercomputing Center
 4 - AS5691 2913  0.3%2913.0 -- MITRE-AS-5 - The MITRE 
Corporation
 5 - AS650012011  0.2%2011.0 -- -Private Use AS-
 6 - AS233841777  0.2%1777.0 -- REEDTECH - Reed Technology and 
Information Services, Inc.
 7 - AS323431627  0.1%1627.0 -- INTRINSIC-THERAPEUTICS - 
Intrinsic Orthopedics/Therapeutics, Inc.
 8 - AS650111570  0.1%1570.0 -- -Private Use AS-
 9 - AS8225 1563  0.1%1563.0 -- ASTELIT-MSK-AS Astelit 
Autonomous System
10 - AS919883410  7.5% 842.5 -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
11 - AS47408   11550  1.0% 825.0 -- MANDARIN-AS Mandarin WIMAX 
Sicilia SpA
12 - AS227834733  0.4% 788.8 -- WEBPOWER - WebPower, Inc.
13 - AS1734 1435  0.1% 717.5 -- ROP-COCA-AS01 - Contra Costa 
County Regional Occupation Program / Richmond
14 - AS20583 665  0.1% 665.0 -- ABNAMROKZ-AS SJSB ABN AMRO Bank 
Kazakhstan JSC
15 - AS44774 560  0.1% 560.0 -- ZOLOTOY-KLYUCHIK-AS Zolotoy 
Klyuchik Ltd.
16 - AS476401507  0.1% 502.3 -- TRICOMPAS Tricomp Sp. z. o. o.
17 - AS4796  473  0.0% 473.0 -- BANDUNG-NET-AS-AP Institute of 
Technology Bandung
18 - AS400603735  0.3% 466.9 -- AAAWI - AAA Wireless, Inc.
19 - AS30947 434  0.0% 434.0 -- PLURICANAL-AS Pluricanal, SA
20 - AS21491   11941  1.1% 398.0 -- UTL-ON-LINE UTL On-line is RF 
broadband ISP in Uganda - Africa


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 95.59.1.0/24  10584  0.9%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 2 - 88.204.221.0/24   10562  0.9%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 3 - 89.218.218.0/23   10280  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 4 - 89.218.220.0/23   10280  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 5 - 95.59.4.0/22  10276  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 6 - 95.59.2.0/23  10273  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 7 - 92.46.244.0/2310272  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 8 - 95.59.8.0/23  10271  0.8%   AS9198  -- KAZTELECOM-AS Kazakhtelecom 
Corporate Sales Administration
 9 - 213.164.56.0/226373  0.5%   AS16091 -- SATEC SATEC AS
10 - 72.23.246.0/24 6059  0.5%   AS5050  -- PSC-EXT - Pittsburgh 
Supercomputing Center
11 - 193.201.184.0/21   5853  0.5%   AS25546 -- BROOKLANDCOMP-AS Brookland 
Computer Services
12 - 118.98.240.0/20

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Randy Bush]

> We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official SMTP
> ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.

for personal use, i have a box that has sshd running on 443 and i tunnel
2525 through it.  that worked even in the narita red rug when they were
at their blocking worst.

for customer use, i would push them to 465, 587 if less clued.

randy

Re: Wireless bridge

[Bret Clark]

Justin Sharp wrote:
I didn't read through all of the replies to see if this was suggested, 
apologies if it was.


http://www.solectek.com/products.php?prod=sw7k&page=feat

I implemented a PTP link at about 3 miles using these Solectek radios. 
I get 40Mbps consistently with TCP traffic and ~100Mbps UDP. This PTP 
link has literally been up for 3 years (in 2 weeks) without failing. I 
live in a 4 seaons state, so its seen all sorts of weather over those 
years. I have clean line of site down the freeway for what its worth. 
Its natively powered via POE, power injector included. We run all 
sorts of usual business application over this link, including about 30 
simultaneous VOIP channels, and have not had one issue with stability. 
I was also told by the VAR that sold us the product that a city nearby 
(can't remember which one) connects all of its municipal buildings 
with Solectek stuff and runs its VOIP infrastructure over it as well.


We run it in bridged mode with routers on each end, but it does 
support some rudimentary L3 stuff, static routing and RIP.


IIRC, they were not "cheap" (couple of 1k), but for us have definitely 
been much cheaper than private circuits from carriers of comparable 
throughput capacity.


Hope its helpful.

--Justin

I have to say I did a double take on your speed claims. We use Solectek 
all over the place and have yet to archived those speeds on any of our 
links. Not only that Solectek engineers have told us that at a 108mbps 
radio rate realistically you are only going to see only 35mbps  data 
rate on link that's just a mile apart; further you go the less bandwidth 
you will have.


Other then that, I agree they are nice radios and even include heaters 
in them to help maintain temperatures above freezing during winter time 
so that ice buildup doesn't cause a problem.


Bret

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Jeroen Wunnink]

Yes..

1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP port' 
in my previous comment ;-)



Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:



Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.


On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink  wrote:

We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official 
SMTP ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.


Is there any reason you do not use port 587, SUBMIT?

-- TTFN,
patrick



Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:


then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
SUBMIT port [587] anyway...



Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 
connections
through some sort of lame proxy that connects you to your intended 
host,

but strips the AUTH field out of the EHLO response from the remote
submission server ...





--

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jeroen Wunnink,
EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder
systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl

telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455  Postbus 48
fax: +31 (035) 6838242  3755 ZG Eemnes

http://www.easyhosting.nl
http://www.easycolocate.nl







--

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jeroen Wunnink,
EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder
systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl

telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455  Postbus 48
fax: +31 (035) 6838242  3755 ZG Eemnes

http://www.easyhosting.nl
http://www.easycolocate.nl

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.


On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink  wrote:

We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official  
SMTP ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.


Is there any reason you do not use port 587, SUBMIT?

-- TTFN,
patrick



Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:


then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
SUBMIT port [587] anyway...



Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well.  
This is
a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587  
connections
through some sort of lame proxy that connects you to your intended  
host,

but strips the AUTH field out of the EHLO response from the remote
submission server ...





--

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jeroen Wunnink,
EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder
systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl

telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455  Postbus 48
fax: +31 (035) 6838242  3755 ZG Eemnes

http://www.easyhosting.nl
http://www.easycolocate.nl

Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?

[Jeroen Wunnink]

We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official SMTP 
ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.


Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
  

then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
SUBMIT 
port [587] anyway...



Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 connections
through some sort of lame proxy that connects you to your intended host,
but strips the AUTH field out of the EHLO response from the remote
submission server ...


  


--

Met vriendelijke groet,

Jeroen Wunnink,
EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder
systeembeh...@easyhosting.nl

telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455  Postbus 48
fax: +31 (035) 6838242  3755 ZG Eemnes

http://www.easyhosting.nl
http://www.easycolocate.nl