Re: BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 6/3/21 8:44 AM, William Herrin wrote:
rp_filter is great until your network is slightly less than a 
perfect hierarchy. Then your Linux "router" starts mysteriously 
dropping packets and, as with allow_local, Linux doesn't have any 
way to generate logs about it so you end up with these mysteriously 
unexplained packet discards matching no conceivable rule in 
iptables... This failure has too often been the bane of my existence 
when using Linux for advanced networking.


I don't remember the particulars, but I thought that was the domain of 
log_martians (net.ipv4.conf.*.log_martians).


Without log_martians or explicitly looking for such, no, you won't get 
any indication of such drops.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Re: Arin taking down raking

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:53 PM TJ Trout  wrote:

> raking=rpki+spell check
>
>
:)

I think, since we don't realy know what arin's doing ...   we could
speculate :)
but:
  1) unreachable publication point / CA == 'ok, see you in 30 mins on my
next cycle through the world' (no real changes)
  b) revoking some portion of their claimed resources in various forms of
CA == 'ideally a bunch of routes suddenly go unknown' == 'ok'
 iii) making a bunch of validatable changes to ROA/certs/content == 'worse
possible outcome, likely to make a bunch of routes invalid'

In case of b or iii I'd expect we'll see some fun times in BGP, either 'a
bunch of re-announcement' or 'a bunch of withdrawals and disasters' :)

I'm sure we'll learn something though?


> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 1:32 PM Christopher Morrow 
> wrote:
>
>> what is raking?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM John Alcock  wrote:
>>
>>> This looks special?
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arin-will-take-down-its-rpki-for-30-minutes-to-test-your-bgp-routes/
>>>
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:04 PM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> 66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000
> symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much
> less oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34
> down/up ratio, than we are doing with GPON and 1000/1000. We are also doing
> 128 customers on a single OLT port.
>

Oh, well that might be the difference right there.

Many wisps generally tolerate a much lower oversubscription ratio.   They
want their customers to always get 25Mb/s when they buy a 25Mb/s plan.
 There is none of this 'up to 25Mb/s' that some providers sell.

Most WISPs could easily sell a plan where the 'up to' speed was similar to
fiber.   But then they would have to deal with angry customers who are
whining that they aren't getting their 1Gb/s during peak hours.

BTW, I don't think we've ever built a fiber network with over a 1:32 ratio
for this reason...
-- 
- Forrest

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Masataka Ohta]

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the
> cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are
> valid concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.

Indeed, there are people who insist cost of PON were small without
valid reasons. See below for an example.

Baldur Norddahl wrote:


As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
subscribers, single star does not cost so much.



Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with
the number of cores.


It's *cabling* cost. OK?


A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a


Cabling cost means cost including but not limited to cable cost.

Most of cabling cost is cost to lay cables. Backhoe costs.
Space factor of a fiber cable is negligible if you put a
cable into utility tunnels which is wide, especially when
tunnels were used for copper cables of POTS.

Josh Luthman wrote:

> The cost of 144 is not
> double that of 72.  288 is not double the cost of 144.

Yup. When PON was first conceived several tens of years ago, core
cost a lot. But, today...

Masataka Ohta

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> 2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point.
>
> Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then
> sell plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100
> megs, you'll be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why
> would you do that? So that you're relatively capable of providing what
> you're selling. The alternative is gross oversubscription.
>

66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000
symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much
less oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34
down/up ratio, than we are doing with GPON and 1000/1000. We are also doing
128 customers on a single OLT port.

Remember that a single customer only adds a few Mbps peak to your bandwidth
usage.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point. 


Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then sell 
plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100 megs, you'll 
be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why would you do that? 
So that you're relatively capable of providing what you're selling. The 
alternative is gross oversubscription. 


Cable will have to reassign their DOCSIS channels similarly (and whatever 
equipment swaps are needed in the plant to accomplish that). 


VDSL-type services are kind of stuck as I'm not aware of any mechanisms to 
accomplish that. 








and why? 


Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to get higher speeds. I'm just 
against raising the bar until what's under the bar has been taken care of. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:18:58 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space. 


See the following product as an example: 


https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
 

14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO. This is able to talk, in the same 
channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both vertical and 
horizontal polarities at the same time. Total throughput per 40Mhz channel: 
1.2Gb/s per AP. 


Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on the 
same tower front to back using the same channel. So 2.4Gb/s per Frequency. And 
there are dozens of channels available at this point. 






But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per frequency, why 
are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?! 


Regards, 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:21 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per
> frequency, why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!
>

The problem is this, in the US:   If the government decides anything under
100Mb/s second isn't broadband, what happens is that any location that
doesn't have 100Mb/s on a given date (usually shortly after the definition
changes) is eligible for subsidies which are only given to a single
provider for them to build out 100Mb/s within a given amount of time, such
as 5 years.   Even if they do have 100Mb/s the ability to state that they
have covered an area is often tied to providing "facilities based" phone
service. So if a WISP doesn't have 100Mb/s right now, or isn't providing
phone service (which few people want anymore), the government gives away
money for a competitor to come in and overbuild the WISP.  There are often
various strings attached that prevent the average WISP from either applying
for or obtaining these funds.

Note the above is a general description, and each iteration of broadband
subsidies have had different rules, but the general description of the
problem is consistent across iterations.  For example, the first batch of
subsidies were only available to incumbent telephone companies.

The sad thing is that this results in less broadband deployment.   These
subsidies rob WISPs of capital they could and would use to expand into
areas where there is very little to no service at all today.   This is
because the subsidies usually end up going to overbuild the WISP's "cash
cow" locations where they provide what you would consider good quality
internet at a reasonable price.   This overbuild (with a subsidised
competitor) reduces the ability for the WISP to obtain capital to expand
since many WISPs are financed using cash flow, and not by other sources of
revenue.

-- 
- Forrest

Re: Arin taking down raking

[TJ Trout]

raking=rpki+spell check

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 1:32 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> what is raking?
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM John Alcock  wrote:
>
>> This looks special?
>>
>>
>> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arin-will-take-down-its-rpki-for-30-minutes-to-test-your-bgp-routes/
>>
>

Re: Arin taking down raking

[John Alcock]

Damn autocorrect.  Rpki not raking.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM John Alcock  wrote:

> This looks special?
>
>
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arin-will-take-down-its-rpki-for-30-minutes-to-test-your-bgp-routes/
>

Re: Arin taking down raking

[Christopher Morrow]

what is raking?

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:29 PM John Alcock  wrote:

> This looks special?
>
>
> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arin-will-take-down-its-rpki-for-30-minutes-to-test-your-bgp-routes/
>

Arin taking down raking

[John Alcock]

This looks special?

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arin-will-take-down-its-rpki-for-30-minutes-to-test-your-bgp-routes/

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Josh Luthman]

Baldur,

Dude you are just so wrong.  You really need to stop guessing at things.

>A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a 96 core cable

192 doesn't even really exist in the mass market.  The cost of 144 is not
double that of 72.  288 is not double the cost of 144.  This is accurate as
of June 1 2021 from my quotes.

>On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number
of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192
cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger
manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with
GPON.

A)  Don't splice the 190 or B) use ribbon and it takes only a few minutes
total.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:14 PM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta <
> mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
>> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
>> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
>> subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
>>
>
> Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly
> with the number of cores. A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price
> of a 96 core cable. Only at very low core count does this break up
> somewhat. A 12 core cable is still significantly cheaper than 24 cores. A 1
> core cable is the same price as 4 cores however.
>
> On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number
> of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192
> cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger
> manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with
> GPON.
>
> Then there is the price to the ducting. A 192 core cable requires bigger
> ducts and plastic is not only expensive, it has recently become scarce.
> Putting in a 24 core cable in a 10/6 duct is much cheaper than a 192 core
> cable.
>
>
>> Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop
>> cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of
>> using dedicated cores of single star.
>>
>
>
> Now a splitter can be mounted in a splice enclosure taking up the same
> space as 12 splices. We use dome shaped water tight enclosures for 96
> splices and then we replace one of the splicing trays with the splitters.
> All of this fits in a handhole about 70 cm long, 60 cm wide and 30 cm deep.
>
> Another operator here instead has the splitters in cabinets with a cabinet
> for every 50 to 200 passed homes. You could build a P2P network like that,
> but then you would need power and active equipment in these cabinets.
>
> Not sure what you are talking about with regards to drop cables. The house
> connection is identical in a GPON and P2P network.
>
>
>
>> On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a
>> cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only
>> one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from
>> closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
>>
>
>
> Typically the infrastructure owner runs the PON equipment and resell vlan
> based access to ISPs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Steven G. Huter]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:

There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, the 
more, the merrier.


https://afterfiber.nsrc.org/

Steve

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.
>
> See the following product as an example:
>
>
> https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
> 14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO.   This is able to talk, in
> the same channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both
> vertical and horizontal polarities at the same time.  Total throughput
> per 40Mhz channel: 1.2Gb/s per AP.
>
> Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on
> the same tower front to back using the same channel.   So 2.4Gb/s per
> Frequency.  And there are dozens of channels available at this point.
>
>
But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per frequency,
why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!

Regards,

Baldur

RE: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Travis Garrison]

In my opinion, if a city is installing a fiber network for other providers to 
use, they need to plan on active-e only. Let it be up to the providers back at 
the head end to either plug the individual strands into a switch for active-e 
or into a splitter for a PON type setup. 

Thank you
Travis Garrison

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Masataka Ohta 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a 
> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, 
> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of 
> subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
>
> Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop 
> cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of using 
> dedicated cores of single star.
>
> On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a 
> cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only one 
> PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from closures 
> to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.

My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the cheapest 
by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid 
concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
> cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
> which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
> subscribers, single star does not cost so much.
>

Sorry but that claim is completely wrong. Cabling cost scales linearly with
the number of cores. A 192 core cable is approximately twice the price of a
96 core cable. Only at very low core count does this break up somewhat. A
12 core cable is still significantly cheaper than 24 cores. A 1 core cable
is the same price as 4 cores however.

On top of that, the price to splice is also linearly related to the number
of cores to splice. Yes there is the setup time, but then working on 192
cable takes a whole day, requires larger enclosures, requires larger
manholes, while we might only need 2 (!) splices to do the same work with
GPON.

Then there is the price to the ducting. A 192 core cable requires bigger
ducts and plastic is not only expensive, it has recently become scarce.
Putting in a 24 core cable in a 10/6 duct is much cheaper than a 192 core
cable.


> Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop
> cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of
> using dedicated cores of single star.
>


Now a splitter can be mounted in a splice enclosure taking up the same
space as 12 splices. We use dome shaped water tight enclosures for 96
splices and then we replace one of the splicing trays with the splitters.
All of this fits in a handhole about 70 cm long, 60 cm wide and 30 cm deep.

Another operator here instead has the splitters in cabinets with a cabinet
for every 50 to 200 passed homes. You could build a P2P network like that,
but then you would need power and active equipment in these cabinets.

Not sure what you are talking about with regards to drop cables. The house
connection is identical in a GPON and P2P network.



> On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a
> cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only
> one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from
> closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.
>


Typically the infrastructure owner runs the PON equipment and resell vlan
based access to ISPs.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:

As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a cable, 
as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided, which 
means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of subscribers, 
single star does not cost so much.


Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop
cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of
using dedicated cores of single star.

On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a
cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only
one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from
closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.


My experience is that people can prove either active-e or pon is the 
cheapest by changing the in-parameters of the calculation. There are valid 
concerns/advantages with both and there is no one-size-fits-all.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Baldur,

Mike and I are both doing FTTH.  We're listening but it doesn't appear you
are saying anything correct. The statement of 5G taking down all WISPs is
probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this list.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:50 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>>
>> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
>> experience. Listen to them.
>>
>
>
> Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
>
> Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
> view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
> now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
> their pants off hands down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Masataka Ohta]

Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG wrote:

I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly 
(if not all) Active-E.


Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.

Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.


As cabling cost is mostly independent of the number of cores in a
cable, as long as enough number of cores for single star are provided,
which means core cost is mostly cabling cost divided by number of
subscribers, single star does not cost so much.

Then, PON, needing large closures for splitters and lengthy drop
cables from the closures, costs a lot cancelling small cost of
using dedicated cores of single star.

On the other hand, if PON is assumed and the number of cores in a
cable is small, core cost for single star will be large and only
one PON operator with the largest share (shortest drop cable from
closures to, e.g. 8 customers) can survive, resulting in monopoly.

Masataka Ohta

Re: BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 2:04 PM Grant Taylor via NANOG  wrote:
> On 6/2/21 4:35 AM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote:
> > Maybe you can explore the in kernel feature call RP filter or reverse
> > path filter. In router gear it's called uRPF.
> >
> > cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/rp_filter
>
> +100 to rp_filter

rp_filter is great until your network is slightly less than a perfect
hierarchy. Then your Linux "router" starts mysteriously dropping
packets and, as with allow_local, Linux doesn't have any way to
generate logs about it so you end up with these mysteriously
unexplained packet discards matching no conceivable rule in
iptables... This failure has too often been the bane of my existence
when using Linux for advanced networking.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

[Mark Andrews]

DANE works with self generated CERTs.  The TLSA record provides the 
cryptographic link back to the DNSSEC root.

-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 3 Jun 2021, at 22:32, babydr DBA James W. Laferriere 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Mark ,
> 
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> On 6/2/21 11:07, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote:
>>> 
>>> As for solutions: better education, more improvements to the tools & making 
>>> it easier. CDS records already help a lot. But we might also need to 
>>> improve recovery mechanisms, as f-ups are made, and you don't want to be 
>>> off this Internet thing for too long.
>> 
>> I think DNSSEC implementation needs to be made less scary for folk who are 
>> apprehensive, and broken down into two steps, where step 1 is most 
>> emphasized:
>> 
>> * Enable DNSSEC on your resolvers. Does not require you to sign your
>>  zones. Does not require you to read up on what it takes to sign and
>>  maintain your zones. Does not require you to worry and test for the
>>  next 60 days whether DNSSEC will break your e-mail delivery, e.t.c.:
>> 
>>  dnssec-enable yes;
>>  dnssec-validation auto;
>> 
>> Done! Two lines (BIND, in this case), and off you go.
> 
>Will this handle the case of self-signed only ?
>And as Jeroen Massar mentioned the resignation of a certificate is a tad 
> troubles some for both DNSSEC & DANE .
> 
>> * Step 2 - take your time cluing up on getting your zone signed, and
>>  being part of the solution toward a more secure Internet. No
>>  pressure, at your pace.
> 
>Again ,  Will this handle the case of self-signed only ?
> 
>> Mark.
>Tia ,  JimL
> -- 
> +-+
> | James   W.   Laferriere| SystemTechniques | Give me VMS |
> | Network & System Engineer  | 3237 Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
> | j...@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
> +-+

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Richey Goldberg]

The incumbent operators and cable companies want nothing to do with these 
networks because they already have their own.   I’ve worked with several 
smaller regional providers  and WISPs that would love to have access to muni 
networks but the local network muni either won’t allow the access or they price 
the access at a price point that it’s impossible to be competitive with the 
muni’s retail side of the house.

-richey

From: NANOG  on behalf of 
Mike Hammett 
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 4:12 PM
To: Harry McGregor 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections)

 

The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber 
infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted 
anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, 
etc.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

 

From: "Harry McGregor" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections)

Hi,

Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar 
to water service.

It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet 
competing with each other in many locations in the US.

That was aided by the following:
Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time
Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time
Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time
Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time
Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very 
different physical plant needs.  Now both of them are primarily fiber based, 
with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted 
pair) as the very last interconnect segment.

We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel 
Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote 
DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more 
copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL 
deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT 
close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced 
by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If 
instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct 
tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to 
ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has 
turned out to be a horrible investment.

We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines 
were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or 
should be run by the municipality.

The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for 
Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by 
anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, 
and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure.  This will work 
well for dense locations of course.

Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to 
play for at least several decades if not more.

I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for 
service they "don't need".  I have worked with several people who were paying 
for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they 
had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service 
with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload 
needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. 
In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more 
difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 
100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that 
have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I 
find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 
or 200/40, I would probably consider it.

None of the realities of current "needs" and "wants" really are going to change 
the financial need to consolidate physical networks. Unfortunately instead of 
it being a Layer1/2 provider and L3+ competition, most Internet networks in new 
developments around here are being deployed as physical layer and service 
monopolies. The home builder will make an alliance with Cox, Comcast, or 
CenturyLink, and then the others will not build out physical plant in the 
community.

-Harry

 

On 6/2/21 11:50 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:
Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Who isn't listening to you about FTTH and in what way? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 3:50:15 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either. 

Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP 
experience. Listen to them. 







Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-) 


Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of view. 
The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available now, nor 
OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat their pants off 
hands down. 


Regards, 


Baldur 

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mike Hammett]

The post to which I replied specifically called for a converged network for all 
operators. 

This is the second time I've had to say this. 

Do people not read an e-mail before replying to it? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Richey Goldberg"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "Harry McGregor" 
 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 7:41:27 AM 
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections) 



The incumbent operators and cable companies want nothing to do with these 
networks because they already have their own. I’ve worked with several smaller 
regional providers and WISPs that would love to have access to muni networks 
but the local network muni either won’t allow the access or they price the 
access at a price point that it’s impossible to be competitive with the muni’s 
retail side of the house. 

-richey 



From: NANOG  on behalf of 
Mike Hammett  
Date: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 4:12 PM 
To: Harry McGregor  
Cc:  
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections) 



The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber 
infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted 
anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, 
etc. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 




From: "Harry McGregor"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:55:20 PM 
Subject: Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections) 
Hi, 

Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar 
to water service. 
It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet 
competing with each other in many locations in the US. 
That was aided by the following: 

* Technology for TV over telephone wire really did not exist at the time 
* Telcos were not very interested in PayTV at the time 
* Technology for Telephone over Coax really did not exist at the time 
* Cable Co's were not very interested in Telephone service at the time 


Basically they were viewed as two very different businesses, with very 
different physical plant needs. Now both of them are primarily fiber based, 
with Coax or Telephone Wire (in many cases you can not even call it twisted 
pair) as the very last interconnect segment. 
We can all agree with hind sight (and a lot of us at the time) that the Tel 
Co's made some very stupid decisions. Perfect example being installing remote 
DLC/SLC units when the demand for analog dial tone skyrocketed, along with more 
copper in the ground/on poles in neighborhoods. At first this blocked ADSL 
deployment until remote DSLAMs were installed, then it turns out most were NOT 
close enough to enable VDSL2 or g.FAST for the majority of customers serviced 
by them. They were both "in the way" and "too far away" at the same time. If 
instead of the DLC/SLC units the Tel Cos had instead favored (with the correct 
tariffs) moving any residential customer who requested a second POTS line to 
ISDN BRI, they would have saved all of the physical plant work, which has 
turned out to be a horrible investment. 
We learned a long time ago that water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines 
were natural monopolies, and should either have a municipal granted license, or 
should be run by the municipality. 
The next generation last mile will almost have to be a similar structure for 
Layer 1 and a form of Layer 2, with Layer 3 and above services being sold by 
anyone who wants to provide the service. This will collapse Cable Co, Tel Co, 
and independent ISPs onto the same physical infrastructure. This will work well 
for dense locations of course. 
Wireless ISPs, and LEO based ISPs will still of course have a major role to 
play for at least several decades if not more. 

I also agree entirely that most consumers will "pay the ISP too much" for 
service they "don't need". I have worked with several people who were paying 
for Gigabit Cable Service, with 30Mbit upload, or in Spectrum territory, they 
had 400Mbit service with 20Mbit upload, and the "downgrade" was 200Mbit service 
with 10Mbit upload. Being as that was a single individual with very low upload 
needs beyond video meetings, I recommended he downgrade to the 200/10 service. 
In all cases, a proper WiFi network and wireless offloading has made far more 
difference vs upping the cable co speeds. My personal sweet spot right now is 
100/20 business cable or 100/100 small business fiber (for the few spots that 
have GPON service in Tucson). The next tier of business cable is 200/20, and I 
find the extra 100Mbit download really does not change much. If it was 200/30 
or 200/40, I would probably consider it. 
None of the realities of 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.

See the following product as an example:

https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO.   This is able to talk, in the
same channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both vertical
and horizontal polarities at the same time.  Total throughput per 40Mhz
channel: 1.2Gb/s per AP.

Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on
the same tower front to back using the same channel.   So 2.4Gb/s per
Frequency.  And there are dozens of channels available at this point.

Many WISPs are also using LTE hardware.  In fact, most gear that WISPs use
anymore has little resemblance to the "hang a Wifi radio on a tower" past
of the WISP industry.   They're all TDMA synchronization (since there is
little possibility for a FDMA scheme in half-duplex channels), not CSMA
like traditional wifi.   They're all moving to various advanced modulations
including multiple streams, spatial diversity, and a lot of other
high-sophistication modulations to squeeze every bit out of the available
bandwidth.

Note that by pointing this out I'm not arguing for a "WISP everywhere"
model.  Many WISPs operate a hybrid model, deploying FTTH where it makes
economical sense to do so, and using WISP technology where it doesn't.
 It's not uncommon to find areas where it's 'miles per home passed' instead
of 'homes passed per mile'.   In these environments, it is not uncommon to
see situations where the money spent deploying the fiber will never be paid
back, even if 100% of the customer revenue is deployed strictly to pay for
the fiber.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:50 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>>
>> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
>> experience. Listen to them.
>>
>
>
> Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
>
> Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
> view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
> now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
> their pants off hands down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>


-- 
- Forrest

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

On the flip-side, what is the penalty for getting Telehealth calls wrong?  It 
could be death.

I’m gonna go coin “megaband” and the minimum upload is going to be 10,000mbps. 

I’m not sure there’s a rational objection to any of this.  Why should humans 
spend our lifetimes waiting on machines?  

640k, that’s all I have to say on the matter.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On May 31, 2021, at 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> How many simultaneous telehealth calls can you be in at a time? In my close 
> family (15 - 20 people), do you know how rare it is to have a medical 
> appointment in the same week as someone else, much less the same exact time, 
> much less the same exact time *and* in the same household?
> 
> That's the difference between people speaking emotionally and people speaking 
> rationally. Well sure, *everyone* has to care about healthcare, so let's 
> throw healthcare on the list of OMG things. No one is helped by people trying 
> to debate something's merit based on emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WFH (or e-learning) is much more likely to have simultaneous uses.
> 
> Yes, I agree that 3 megs is getting thin for three video streams. Not 
> impossible, but definitely a lot more hairy. So then what about moving the 
> upload definition to 5 megs? 10 megs? 20 megs? Why does it need to be 100 
> megs?
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "Abhi Devireddy" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 5:17:36 AM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> 
> On May 28, 2021, at 06:56 , Mike Hammett  > wrote:
> 
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
> 
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?
> 
> Pretty much everything if you have, say, 3+ people in your house trying to do 
> it at once…
> 
> A decent Zoom call requires ~750Kbps of upstream bandwidth. When you get two
> kids doing remote school and mom and dad each doing $DAYJOB via 
> teleconferences,
> that 3Mbps gets spread pretty thin, especially if you’ve got any other 
> significant use
> of your upstream connection (e.g. kids posting to Tik Tok, etc.)
> 
> Sure, for a single individual, 25/3 might be fine. For a household that has 
> the industry
> standard 2.53 people, it might even still work, but barely. Much above that 
> average
> and things degrade rapidly and not very gracefully.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Abhi Devireddy" mailto:a...@devireddy.com>>
> To: nanog@nanog.org , "Jason Canady" 
> mailto:ja...@unlimitednet.us>>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:34 AM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
> talk with you.
> 
> There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone 
> who's got a bad connection. 
> Abhi
> 
> Abhi Devireddy
> 
> From: NANOG  > on behalf of Jason 
> Canady mailto:ja...@unlimitednet.us>>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org   >
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>  
> I second Mike.
> 
> On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I don't think it needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Sean Donelan"  
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM
> Subject: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?
> 
> 
> This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year
> 
> year  speed
> 
> 1999  200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than 
> dialup/ISDN speeds)
> 
> 2000  200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service 
> providers had 128 kbps upload)
> 
> 2010   4 mbps down / 1 mbps up
> 
> 2015   25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired)
>  5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)
> 
> 2021   ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)
> 
> Not only in major cities, but also rural areas
> 
> Note, the official broadband definition only 

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

[babydr DBA James W. Laferriere]

Hello Mark ,

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:

On 6/2/21 11:07, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote:

As for solutions: better education, more improvements to the tools & making 
it easier. CDS records already help a lot. But we might also need to 
improve recovery mechanisms, as f-ups are made, and you don't want to be 
off this Internet thing for too long.


I think DNSSEC implementation needs to be made less scary for folk who are 
apprehensive, and broken down into two steps, where step 1 is most 
emphasized:


* Enable DNSSEC on your resolvers. Does not require you to sign your
  zones. Does not require you to read up on what it takes to sign and
  maintain your zones. Does not require you to worry and test for the
  next 60 days whether DNSSEC will break your e-mail delivery, e.t.c.:

         dnssec-enable yes;
 dnssec-validation auto;

        Done! Two lines (BIND, in this case), and off you go.


Will this handle the case of self-signed only ?
	And as Jeroen Massar mentioned the resignation of a certificate is a tad 
troubles some for both DNSSEC & DANE .



* Step 2 - take your time cluing up on getting your zone signed, and
  being part of the solution toward a more secure Internet. No
  pressure, at your pace.


Again ,  Will this handle the case of self-signed only ?


Mark.

Tia ,  JimL
--
+-+
| James   W.   Laferriere| SystemTechniques | Give me VMS |
| Network & System Engineer  | 3237 Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| j...@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+-+

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.  Watch 
society’s next golden age come out of Africa.  
-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On Jun 1, 2021, at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/21 15:49, Don Fanning wrote:
> 
>> One thing to consider in regards to "developing" places - most people in 
>> Africa and India get their internet from SmartPhones/Mobile devices.  Reason 
>> being: power, mobility, and that in many places, the phone company in many 
>> locations acts as a "western union" for their areas... including bill 
>> pay/wire transfer and digital wallet.  This is due to everyone has phone 
>> bills/minutes/data to purchase - as well as mobile purchasing with 
>> barcodes/SMS, etc...
> 
> The main reason mobile phones took off in Africa is because while almost all 
> countries on the continent had some kind of national telephone network and 
> infrastructure for at least 2.5 decades after independence, it suffered 
> neglect. It wasn't until around 1998 - 2003 that mobile operators sprang up 
> all over the continent, and immediately made landlines obsolete.
> 
> Had public PTT's been serious and kept looking to grow and serve, 
> post-independence, they may not have survived the "scourge" of the mobile 
> network, but they would have been in a great position to deliver wire-based 
> Internet access, be it copper or fibre, later in their lives.
> 
> That innovative services such as phone banking have emerged simply goes to 
> show that the mobile phone (and the network it rides on) is a pathway to 
> solving problems in a local community in a way that matters to them. No point 
> in crying about not being able to open a bank account simply because you 
> don't have a national ID or a street address, when someone who cares can 
> build a simple version of the need for use on even the cheapest of 
> un-smartphones.
> 
> 
>> 
>> They don't really "Netflix and chill" but when they do, you're likely to see 
>> multiple screens occurring and they'll still be on mobile or wifi.
> 
> Most users in Africa that can afford Netflix will usually have some kind of 
> wired service, or failing that, will use a MiFi router that translates 4G to 
> wi-fi. The mobile companies have data plans for all major content services, 
> so that helps deal with affordability there.
> 
> 
>>   So 4G/5G will be of greater benefit to crowded neighborhoods which there 
>> are a lot of them there.
> 
> For me, I still don't see 5G being a model for the mobile operators; too much 
> cost in a space where 4G isn't struggling.
> 
> Moreover, 5G makes sense in dense cities where fibre is already available. 
> Given the chance, the kids will choose wi-fi over *G, even if you offer them 
> unlimited mobile data.
> 
> 
>> Backhaul could easily occur over the LEO satellite constellation since it 
>> will be a long time before you'll see Africa and most of Asia needing 
>> constant signal coverage.
> 
> Africa's days of satellite to build backbones are long behind it. Fibre may 
> not be able to reach all the people, but it will reach the data centres, and 
> the mobile towers.
> 
> 
>> 
>> It's a mistake to think that everyone uses the internet the same way as 
>> people thinking that we all use our cell phones the same way.
> 
> +1.
> 
> Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

Thank you Baldur.  I also operate an owned and designed FTTH network, as well 
as global carrier networks.  

If you look at this from first principles, glass fiber optical cable is cheap.  
PVC/HDPE seething is also cheap.   Underground space is cheap.  

Construction, regulation, compliance, and financing are hard.

The latter are all human-caused.  There’s nothing fundamental here stopping us. 
 

So, we have a duty to proceed.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On Jun 1, 2021, at 2:40 AM, Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Mike Hammett  > wrote:
> No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building 
> last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger 
> percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last 
> mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money.
> 
> I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home.
> 
> 
> Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what 
> they want.
> 
> Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect 
> is a foolish venture.
> 
> 
> Since you also replied to some of my comments, I will say that I am the 
> founder of a last mile FTTH provider in the greater Copenhagen, Denmark area 
> with thousands of customers. All built for our own money with zero subsidies 
> to customers that would pay good money to upgrade from DSL. I planned, 
> designed and built everything from the network, the outdoor plant, the method 
> we use to dig (directional drilling mostly), which pipes to use, what cable 
> etc. Also marketing, sales and funds raising - in short: everything. We did 
> this from nothing to a company with more than 100 employees today.
> 
> I claim to know the cost and complexity better than most.
> 
> I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality.
> 
> 
> I could say the same. But maybe our reality differs. You seem to be very hung 
> up on what minimums are needed to do a certain job. But that simply is not 
> it. If a person believes his internet is slow, then it is slow, no matter 
> what some experts think would be enough for that persons needs. That means he 
> will buy my offering even though he probably already has VDSL with speeds 
> faster than what you propose. It also means he will consider the available 
> options when weighting pros and cons of a new home.
> 
> Here in Denmark we have a problem that people are moving away from rural 
> areas and to the bigger cities. There are many reasons for this, but one 
> often quoted reason is the lack of good internet.
> 
> Good internet in Denmark is 1000 Mbps for less than USD $50 per month. But I 
> accept that 100 Mbps at a somewhat higher price point is probably a fine 
> speed for rural US, where distances are huge and alternative solutions, such 
> as fixed wireless, may need to be part of the solution. Or maybe Starlink is 
> the solution.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Having dealt with this personally, I can guarantee that CAF/RDOF require
phone service to be provided as an option (and no, pointing a customer
toward a third-party voip service doesn't count) to both have an area
counted as "served" (so that you're not overbuilt) and providing phone
service is a condition of these programs.

At this point I'll point out the ridiculousness of the FCC pushing network
neutrality at the exact same time as forcing companies who take these
grants to compete potentially unfairly with internet-based voip providers.

My understanding of the reason is that CAF/RDOF are actually *telephone*
programs which have been extended to do internet.   It's more telephone
w/internet added on than internet w/telephone added on from a policy
standpoint.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:31 PM heasley  wrote:

> Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> > CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*.  The internet was a happy byproduct.
>
> the way that i interpret it, it does not require phone service but does
> still offer grants for phone service.
>
> anyway, that is irrelevant.  the point is that grants are offered for
> internet services infrastructure (and they are poorly managed).
>


-- 
- Forrest

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:44 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Jim Troutman wrote:
>
> Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON
> because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even
> if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is why
> PON is so popular.
>
> Muni fiber operators deploying PON because it is so pupular
> are just dumb stupid.
>


As the founder/owner of a private FTTH operator I can say the above is
wrong. The _only_ reason we use PON is because it is vastly cheaper to
build. It is also more flexible, which might be counter intuitive. I have
watched competitors try P2P but it is always a disaster for them. The PON
network will finish sooner, require considerably less cabling and ducts,
easier to expand with unplanned capacity, can be rerouted when an expected
permit fails to go through, and does not require much footprint for active
equipment. We have a single road side cabinet, using less than a single
square meter, serving an area in excess of 100 square kilometers. In theory
GPON can go all the way to 40 km from switch to customer, which would be
more than 1000 square km served from one point of presence.

Fiberstrands are not free. In a P2P topology you need to have cabinets with
active equipment close to the customers, otherwise you will have huge costs
for all that fiber. Your network would also become vulnerable because a
fiber cut on a duct with thousands of fiberstrands is not something that
gets fixed in a few hours. Huge cables can not easily be rerouted when
other construction works require you to do so.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>
> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
> experience. Listen to them.
>


Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)

Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
their pants off hands down.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Masataka Ohta]

Jim Troutman wrote:


However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can
win the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.



No.  Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with
a PON design.


Private fiber operators are strongly motivated to deploy PON
because PON is designed to make competitions impossible even
if regulators forces the operators to do so, which is why
PON is so popular.

Muni fiber operators deploying PON because it is so pupular
are just dumb stupid.


If the network is not a "one fiber per customer" design, then the
muni network will own the entire GPON/XGS-PON infrastructure (fiber,
splitters and lit electronics).


What if the muni infrastructure is plain PON with 1G ether
switches?

Where is the competition to improve the infrastructure, even
though it is already "broadband"?

Or, even if it is GPON with 10G switches, how can it be
upgraded to 10GPON with 100G switches?


The ISP is just providing bits,
customer service, billing, and maybe the inside install and CPE.


You miss "bps", which is essential to be "broadband".

Masataka Ohta

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:



Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.

Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.


Yes, this is how I remember it some 4 or so years ago...

Thanks for the clarification.

Mark.

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:

I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if 
not all) Active-E.


Sweden is mostly Active-e. There is some PON nowadays though.

Stokab typically only rents out dark fiber, so they don't have any of it.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mikael Abrahamsson via NANOG]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Masataka Ohta wrote:


Mark Tinka wrote:


Which is the Stokab model.


Does it use single star?

The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators atthe 
same price, and get out of the way. End of.


With single star topology, that's fine.


https://stokab.se/download/18.310b3d5c174c5513aec263/1601471204836/Framtidens%20kommunikationsn%C3%A4t%20LOWRES.pdf

It's in swede-crypt, but it boils down to single strand of fiber from a 
central area node, to the basement, one for each apartment. However, the 
building owner has to arrange for the cabling within the building. It's 
single star, and typically the "node" it's all connected to will serve 
thousands of apartments. So an ISP will colocate in this "node" and can 
then rent fibers to provide FTTH services, at a fixed monthly cost (last I 
heard it was in the ~10USD a month range).


Stokab isn't alone in this model, they're not the most successful, there 
are better examples of this.


Sweden is also home to a lot of worse examples, all from "muni networks" 
that will be L2 transport providers, that will have L3 networks, to the 
ones who are L2/L3 but also sell services themselves. It's a zoo.


There is muni broadband that sucks and there is muni broadband that is 
great. Without defining what kind of muni broadband we're talking about 
it's impossible to have a productive discussion.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 09:15, Mark Tinka wrote:



  In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access)...


That's actually untrue - I just remembered that the City of Cape Town 
actually does build fibre. It's not very clear to me to what extent they 
operate it, particularly beyond supporting municipal departments:


https://www.capetown.gov.za/Media-and-news/City%20digs%20in%20smartly%20to%20install%20fibre-optic%20cabling

It's possible some other cities are doing the same, but the message I 
was pushing is that pretty much all FTTx of note going into homes, 
businesses and data centres is being built and operated by the private 
sector.


Mark.

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 09:07, Jim Troutman wrote:



No.  Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with 
a PON design.


In South Africa (we don't have city-owned/operated fibre access), all 
the major fibre operators run a GPON network. They all provide open 
access to the ISP's they partner with. So far, it seems to work well.


I'd say only one of the fibre operators is not an ISP (there may be 
more, it's a big country). The rest are, but they run the businesses as 
a silo so that they are fair to both their ISP divisions as well as the 
3rd party ISP's they partner with.


Mark.

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Jim Troutman]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 1:37 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> > The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at
> > the same price, and get out of the way. End of.
>
> With single star topology, that's fine.
>
> However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win
> the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.
>

No.  Most of the municipal proposals I see are open access, even with a PON
design.

If the network is not a "one fiber per customer" design, then the muni
network will own the entire GPON/XGS-PON infrastructure (fiber, splitters
and lit electronics).  The ISP is just providing bits, customer service,
billing, and maybe the inside install and CPE.  Sometimes, the transport to
the customer is a fee paid by the ISP to the network owner.  In other cases
the end-customer pays the fiber transport cost directly to the network
owner, and then pays a separate bill just for their desired ISP service.
This is all designed for open access with each ISP having their own NNIs
and service VLANs on the lit network to connect back to their ISP service
network.

Often the muni owners are looking for a "network operator" that is usually
one of the ISPs on the network, who will handle all the physical
administration and connection work for the lit network, and is paid some
sort of fee for doing this.  They have to stay neutral as the operator,
when dealing with other ISPs, with contract requirements and SLAs for
maintaining the network for all involved.

There are several successful municipal or utility district owned open
access fiber infrastructure projects in the US.  Some of the
implementations even allow the customer to "self service" switch to a new
ISP as desired, via a web portal and have several choices for providers.

Occasionally a muni network will want a single ISP for the entire network.
They will offer an ISP an exclusive contract for a fixed period of time,
and negotiate for the lowest possible price for their residents for the
bandwidth provided.  I know of muni owned networks where the residents are
paying $30/month for full 1GigE ISP service, and all the other costs are
paid by their property taxes servicing a long term bond for the
construction costs.

-- 
Jim Troutman,
jamesltrout...@gmail.com
Pronouns: he/him/his
207-514-5676 (cell)

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 00:26, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


Then honestly we should organize and do a better job.

Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds, 
etc.

We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27 
years.

Anyone interested, reach out.  We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m project 
for instance.  First crossing in 20 years.  Clears the SFPUC cable too.

I want everyone onboard, I don’t care about the money (though I’m not 
irresponsible with it) I care about connecting the world.


The number of folk that genuinely want to do good for its own sake, is 
often outnumbered by those who make it a point to find "avenues to eat" 
with every opportunity that comes their way. That is not an easy one to 
fix, despite all of our best intentions.


Mark.

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 00:25, babydr DBA James W. Laferriere wrote:



Again ,  Will this handle the case of self-signed only ?


Not sure I understand your question, in both cases of recursion and 
authoritative.


Mark.

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 04:53, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote:


 Jeroen
  (who has the majority of domains under my control DNSSEC signed, 
but... not all; need to do the DANE part though still)


You and me both, on the DANE bit :-).

Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/2/21 23:27, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:


Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.


There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, 
the more, the merrier.


Mark.

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 07:36, Masataka Ohta wrote:


With single star topology, that's fine.

However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share can win
the initial competition, after which there is monopoly.


I'll let Mikael confirm, but last time I checked, Stokab was mostly (if 
not all) Active-E.


Mark.