Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

[Jeffrey Lyon]

Another +1 UBNT. We're using the NanoStation2 to deliver 802.11g to
remote camps in Afghanistan. They advertise a 60 deg LOS signal but it
seems to do much better. Supposedly they will reach 15 km but we've
never tried to use them that far. What's really neat is they come
ready to mount with some heavy duty zip ties.

I'm also a fan of the Cisco Aironet 1310, but we're using the built-in
omni-directional antennae so the range isn't as nice as the Ubiquity
and they cost about five times as much. The terminations are RG6 and
the mount kit comes with the cable and weather strips to protect the
terminations. The Ubiquity by comparison is all PoE so you'll want to
use loom to protect the ethernet cable.

I would venture to say that the UBNT omni-directional devices (eg.
PicoStation2HP) have better range than the aforementioned Aironet
1310.

Jeff


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote:
>
>> Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com
>>
>> I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety
>> of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost
>> effective and reliable last mile solution.
>>
>> IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is
>> the only way to go in rural.  The benefits of licensed frequencies are
>> "typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending
>> devices.  The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same
>> level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets.  Of
>> course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own
>> requirements and challenges to be considered.
>
> +1 UBNT.
>
> Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair of 
> dual-pol 802.11n equipment).
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
>



-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[Steven Bellovin]

On Sep 17, 2010, at 5:20 46PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

> Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart  wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin  
>> wrote:
>>> No, they bought AT&T, which [...]  But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of 
>>> the new AT&T.
>  Most of the wide-area ISP network is the old AT&T, while
> much of the consumer broadband grew out of the SBC DSL side.

Yup.

> 
>>> As for the two /8s -- not quite.  Back in the 1980s, AT&T got 12/8.  We 
>>> soon learned that we couldn't make good use of it, since multiple levels of 
>>> subnetting didn't exist.  We offered it back to Postel in exchange for 
>>> 135/8 -- i.e., the equivalent in class B space -- but Postel said to keep 
>>> 12/8 since no one else could use it, either.  This was all long before 
>>> addresses were tight.  When AT&T decided to go into the ISP business, circa 
>>> 1995, 12/8 was still lying around, unused except for a security experiment 
>>> I was running.*However, a good chunk of 135/8 went to Lucent (now 
>>> Alcatel-Lucent) in 1996, though I don't know how much.
> 
> The AT&T bits kept some fraction of 135; I don't know how
> much without dredging through ARIN Whois, but at least 135.63/16 is on
> my desktop.

I know -- that's why I wrote "a good chunk", but I sure don't know who got 
what.  (FYI, I'm still a very part-time AT&T employee.)
> 
> If I remember correctly, which is unlikely at this point,
> 12/8 was the Murray Hill Cray's Hyperchannel network, which I'd heard
> didn't know how to do subnetting except on classful boundaries, so it
> could happily handle 16M hosts on its Class A, and in fact only had
> two or three.

Good point.  I don't remember what time frame that was true, though.  I'm 
certain about why Mark Horton got 12/8 and 135/8, but I don't remember the 
years, either.


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

[Jared Mauch]

On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote:

> Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com
> 
> I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety
> of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost
> effective and reliable last mile solution.
> 
> IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is
> the only way to go in rural.  The benefits of licensed frequencies are
> "typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending
> devices.  The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same
> level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets.  Of
> course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own
> requirements and challenges to be considered.

+1 UBNT.

Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair of 
dual-pol 802.11n equipment).

- Jared

RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[George Bonser]

> IMHO it's stupid for an ISP to intentionally design for and allow
> bottlenecks to exist within their network.  The bottleneck to the end
> user is currently unavoidable, and users with bandwidth intensive uses
> might prefer some prioritization (to their own specifications) on that
> part of the link.  Bottlenecks within the ISP network and between ISPs
> should be avoidable, and should be avoided.  Any ISP that fails to
> mitigate those bottlenecks will quickly find customers streaming to
> another ISP that will advertise "no network congestion here, no
traffic
> shaping that slows down traffic that might be important to YOU" etc.
> 
> jc

I think the extent to which one favors prioritization or not will depend
on who they are and what is going on at the moment.  If I am an ISP that
is not a telecom provider of circuits, I might be more in favor of
prioritization.  If I am a provider of bandwidth to others, I would be
against it as I want to sell bandwidth to them.  It might also depend on
circumstances that vary from time to time.  

If an application suddenly appears that becomes wildly popular
practically overnight and is a bandwidth hog, it might be difficult to
move fast enough to accommodate that usage.  I seem to remember that
when Napster first appeared, it swamped many networks. 

If a situation occurs such as a disaster of national or global or even
local interest, maybe the sudden demand swamps the existing
infrastructure.  If I were providing consumer access, I might provide
two methods.  The first would be no prioritization, just treat
everything equally.  The second might be a "canned" prioritization
profile that a user could elect for application to their connection.
This might not prioritize any specific content provider over another so
much as prioritize certain protocols over another. So it might
prioritize VOIP up, and p2p protocols down as an example.  A "value
added" situation might be one that allows a user to specify their own
prioritization profile for some additional fee.

In an emergency situation, a provider might possibly want to have some
prioritization profiles "on the shelf" ready to apply if needed. This
might prioritize traffic to certain government, emergency, and
information services up and traffic to some other services and protocols
down. 

Generally, I would want to see every network have enough bandwidth for
every contingency but that is somewhat unrealistic because we don't have
a crystal ball.  What would be the demand today in the case of another
9/11/01 type of event? I don't think anyone really knows. In that case,
not having some prioritization plan in place might render a network
completely useless.  Having one might allow some services to work at the
expense of others. I would rather be connected to a network that would
allow access to government sites, news and information sites, email, and
voice communications at the expense of, say, gaming, streaming content,
gambling, and porn for the duration of the emergency.

It would also be better, in my opinion, for networks to have their own
emergency plans than to put in place a mechanism where government
dictates what gets done and when.  You can flee a network that does
something you don't like for one that has a plan more in line with your
priorities, fleeing a government is more difficult.
 

Da Shi wants to stay in touch on LinkedIn

[Da Shi]

LinkedIn


   
I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Da Shi

Da Shi
Managing Director at 3z Canada 
Toronto, Canada Area

Confirm that you know Da Shi
https://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-geaggbx4-2z/isd/1686347474/EeHY08Xk/


 
-- 
(c) 2010, LinkedIn Corporation

Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency

[John Gammons]

Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com

I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety
of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost
effective and reliable last mile solution.

IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is
the only way to go in rural.  The benefits of licensed frequencies are
"typically" lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending
devices.  The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same
level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets.  Of
course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own
requirements and challenges to be considered.

John

On Saturday, September 18, 2010, Georges-Keny PAUL  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> My team is working on technical and technological specifications of a
> document for the deployment of Internet service on public frequencies in
> rural areas. We welcome your thoughts on the topic in terms of previous
> experiences and, well sure, you recommendation in terms of equipment. You
> should note that the environment in question is very mountainous with very
> precarious infrastructure conditions: no electricity, poor access, etc. We
> would like to deploy a service at minimal cost, using mainly open source
> software.
>
>
> All comments, suggestions, recommendations, draft, success stories are well
> come.
>
>
> Feel free to contact me for additional information.
>
>
>
> Warms regards,
> Georges-Keny PAUL
>

Re: Randy in Nevis

[Jeffrey Lyon]

I'm sure it's a lot better than our Afghanistan satellite systems (84%
uptime on two of them, 41% on the third). Luckily we load balance the
WAN ports so it's not *too* painful.

Jeff

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
>> http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult
>
> wow!  lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more
> and more.
>
> randy
>
>



-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[Randy Bush]

 $whatever folk.  qos is about whose packets to drop.  who
here is paid to drop packets?

if this was $customer-list, i could understand wanting to drop some
packets on the link you were too cheap to provision reasonably (which is
pretty st00pid in today's pricing environment).  but this is a net ops
list.

randy

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[JC Dill]

Bill Stewart wrote:

A very common design is that businesses can get diffserv (or the MPLS
equivalents) on end-to-end services provided by ISP X, but the peering
arrangements with ISP Y don't pass diffserv bits, or pass it but
ignore it, or use different sets of bits.  It's very frustrating to me
as a consumer, because what I'd really like would be for the main
bottleneck point (my downstream connection at home) to either respect
the diffserv bits set by the senders, or else to give UDP higher
priority and TCP lower priority, and put Bittorrent and its ilk in a
scavenger class, so VOIP and real-time video work regardless of my web
activity and the web gets more priority than BitTorrent.
  


I can understand you wanting this done on YOUR bottleneck, in the 
connection between the ISP and you.  And you want it done to YOUR 
specifications.  That is entirely reasonable. 

But would you want the ISP doing it elsewhere in the network, and done 
to their priorities, not yours?  (A "one size fits all" congestion 
prioritization solution.) Further, would you be happy with an ISP that 
HAS a bottleneck elsewhere in their network - not just in the last mile 
to your door? 

IMHO it's stupid for an ISP to intentionally design for and allow 
bottlenecks to exist within their network.  The bottleneck to the end 
user is currently unavoidable, and users with bandwidth intensive uses 
might prefer some prioritization (to their own specifications) on that 
part of the link.  Bottlenecks within the ISP network and between ISPs 
should be avoidable, and should be avoided.  Any ISP that fails to 
mitigate those bottlenecks will quickly find customers streaming to 
another ISP that will advertise "no network congestion here, no traffic 
shaping that slows down traffic that might be important to YOU" etc.


jc

PS.  Bill, if you aren't using Sonic, give their Fusion service a look.  
It's better than Kadu.  :-)

Re: Randy in Nevis

[Randy Bush]

> http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult

wow!  lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more
and more.

randy

Randy in Nevis

[Rudolph Daniel]

Dont know if this may assist, but here is another from St Vincent...lime
network.   Sunday 19th sep. 2010

http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult

RD

Re: Nevis Internet

[Randy Bush]

> Very interesting Randy, this sounds like what we endure on a regular
> basis in the eastern CaribbeanI too would like to know why myself
> since I have always wondered whether our local networks are set up.

well, here is the netalyzer report from caribbean cable on north nevis
at a good time


http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/restore/id=43ca253f-6723-1110f506-4d39-465b-8b1d

of course, this is a rough state of the art measurement of services and
performance.

but i am not aware of a tool that will help diagnose connectivity issues
such as i am seeing, see OP.  anyone with clue on that please holler.
it smells to me as if there is a middle-box or three which think they
are too smart and just do not scale.  but i really have no idea.

randy

Re: Nevis Internet

[Rudolph Daniel]

Very interesting Randy, this sounds like what we endure on a regular basis
in the eastern CaribbeanI too would like to know why myself since I have
always wondered whether our local networks are set up.

Rudi Daniel


> From: Randy Bush 
> Subject: very strange internet behavior
> To: customersupp...@caribcable.com
> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:14:08 -0400
>
> [ this needs to be escalated to an internet engineer ]
>
> hi,
>
> i am an old senior internet geek vacationing on nevis's nesbit beach.
> the cottage has your tv and internet service.
>
> during what i suspect are the busy hours of the day, your internet
> service borders on useless.  it is as if an overloaded NAT is in the
> middle. one can reach very few web sites.  one can reach (ping, ssh,
> ...) some hosts and not others.  and the hosts are in the same rack and
> same ip address space in a stateside colo.  one can ping a host but not
> ssh to it.  or i can be sshed into a host and yet not be able to ping
> it.  very twisty stuff.
>
> if i turn on the tv, the cable seems to be working.
>
> i can run an openvpn tunnel to a stateside or japan-based host and then
> everything is reachable.  of course i have to try three or four of my
> openvpn serving hosts before i find one which is reachable.  this is not
> a great solution, and certainly not one available to the vast majority
> of your customers.
>
> from an engineer's point of view, i would love to understand what the
> cause of all this really is.
>
> randy
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG@nanog.org
> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 32, Issue 62
> *
>



-- 

Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles * consulting
*ICT4Dev & e Business and services
*
*1-784 498 8277 *
** *h ttp://csisvg.ning.com
*

caribbean cable ip contact

[Randy Bush]

if a clued engineer at caribbean cable happens to read this message, i
would be thankful if they contacted me privately.  thank you.

randy

--

From: Randy Bush 
Subject: very strange internet behavior
To: customersupp...@caribcable.com
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:14:08 -0400

[ this needs to be escalated to an internet engineer ]

hi,

i am an old senior internet geek vacationing on nevis's nesbit beach.
the cottage has your tv and internet service.

during what i suspect are the busy hours of the day, your internet
service borders on useless.  it is as if an overloaded NAT is in the
middle. one can reach very few web sites.  one can reach (ping, ssh,
...) some hosts and not others.  and the hosts are in the same rack and
same ip address space in a stateside colo.  one can ping a host but not
ssh to it.  or i can be sshed into a host and yet not be able to ping
it.  very twisty stuff.

if i turn on the tv, the cable seems to be working.

i can run an openvpn tunnel to a stateside or japan-based host and then
everything is reachable.  of course i have to try three or four of my
openvpn serving hosts before i find one which is reachable.  this is not
a great solution, and certainly not one available to the vast majority
of your customers.

from an engineer's point of view, i would love to understand what the
cause of all this really is.

randy

Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

[Bill Stewart]

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:34 AM, JC Dill  wrote:
> Jack Bates wrote:
>> And yet, I'm pretty sure there are providers that have different pipes for
>> business than they do for consumer, and probably riding some of the same
>> physical medium. This creates saturated and unsaturated pipes, which is just
>> as bad or worse than using QOS. The reason I'm pretty sure about it, is
>> business circuits generally are guaranteed, while consumer are not.
>
> I'm pretty sure you are mistaken.  The reason is, it's adding an additional
> layer of complexity inside the network for no good reason.

Real ISPs have all sorts of different layers of complexity, for lots
of reasons ranging from equipment performance to Layer 8 differences
to mergers&acquisitions to willingness-to-pay to marketing objectives
to historical accident.   An ISP that's also a telco-ish carrier will
typically offer multiple services at Layer 1, Layer 2, MPLS, Layer 3,
and other variants on transport.  Copper's different economically from
fiber pairs, SONET, Ethernet, CWDM, DWDM, some services get
multiplexed by using bundles of copper or fiber, some get multiplexed
by using different kinds of wavelength or time division, some get
shared by packet-switching, some packet switches are smarter on some
transport media than on others, some services will use edge equipment
from Brand C or J or A because they were the first or cheapest to get
Feature X when it was needed, some services are designed for Layer 9
problems like different taxes on different kinds of access services.
An ISP that isn't an end-to-end vertically integrated provider will be
buying stuff from other carriers that influences what services they
offer, but the integrated providers often do that too.

There are some kinds of service where the difference between
business-grade and consumer-grade is mainly about options for types of
billing, or for guarantees around how fast they'll get a truck to your
place to fix things - that's especially common in access networks.
Most consumer home internet service is running on DSL or cable modems,
and that's going to behave differently than T1 access or 10 Gbps
WAN-PHY or LAN-PHY gear.  Different priced services may get connected
to circuits or boxes that have different amounts of oversubscription.
Different protocols give you different feedback mechanisms that affect
performance.  Or higher-priced services may have measuring mechanisms
built in to them or bolted alongside, so that performance problems can
generate a trouble ticket faster or get a refund on the bill, and come
with a sales person who doesn't really understand how they work but is
being pressured to provide 110% uptime.

A common design these days is to have an MPLS backbone supporting
multiple services including private networks and public internet, and
the private networks may get dedicated chunks of the trunking, or may
get higher MPLS prioritization.  But separately from that, the IP
edges may support Diffserv, and maybe the backbones do or maybe they
don't, or maybe some parts of the trunking are only accessible to the
higher-priority services.   And maybe the diffserv gets implemented
differently on the equipment that's used for different transmission
media, or maybe the box that has the better port density doesn't have
as many queues as the lower-density box, or maybe it's different
between different port cards with the same vendor.

A very common design is that businesses can get diffserv (or the MPLS
equivalents) on end-to-end services provided by ISP X, but the peering
arrangements with ISP Y don't pass diffserv bits, or pass it but
ignore it, or use different sets of bits.  It's very frustrating to me
as a consumer, because what I'd really like would be for the main
bottleneck point (my downstream connection at home) to either respect
the diffserv bits set by the senders, or else to give UDP higher
priority and TCP lower priority, and put Bittorrent and its ilk in a
scavenger class, so VOIP and real-time video work regardless of my web
activity and the web gets more priority than BitTorrent.


-- 

             Thanks;     Bill

Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.