Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Crist Clark]

A decade ago I recall Globalstar, yet another LEO phone service, had been
trying to work out a partnership with a terrestrial carrier that could use
their spectrum allotment. It was purely a business move. Nothing technical
about it. Spectrum is valuable, and they were trying to find a way to
monetize it while still staying in the rules, or at least a plausible
argument that they were following the rules.

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 1:23 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> It's DirecTV that became part of AT&T, but now they're separated again.
>
> Dish Network is building a nation-wide terrestrial mobile network.
> Supposed to be the new #4 provider.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG" 
> *To: *"Michael Thomas" 
> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined
> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance
> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like
> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
>
> But is what Starlink saying true or not?
>
> It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
>
> Mike
>
> It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the
> Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the
> 12Ghz spectrum.
>
> I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.
>
> Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile
> service from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and
> granting them 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the
> public interest.
>
> I thought they were land based? What I read is that being land based means
> that they can transmit at much higher power.
>
>
> I wasn’t aware that Dish had terrestrial facilities. I had forgotten their
> absorption into AT&T.
>
> So I retract my comments in that regard… They are a traditional telephant
> and I think that terrestrial 5G on 12Ghz is even less useful.
>
> OTOH, I think Starlink is most definitely an interesting product that does
> provide a clear path to reasonable alternatives to the incumbent telephants.
>
> Especially when you factor in mobility when they get there. No more
> roaming fees, all over the world.
>
>
> Yep… Probably one of the reasons DishT&T is trying to fight so hard to
> cause them grief.
>
> Owen
>
>
>

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Mike Hammett]

It's DirecTV that became part of AT&T, but now they're separated again. 

Dish Network is building a nation-wide terrestrial mobile network. Supposed to 
be the new #4 provider. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"  
To: "Michael Thomas"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM 
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G? 







On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote: 


On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: 





On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote: 


On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote: 


The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over 
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was never 
well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a 
battle for 12GHz, not 5G. 


But is what Starlink saying true or not? 

It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants. 

Mike 


It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the Starlink 
modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the 12Ghz 
spectrum. 

I have no reason to disbelieve their claims. 

Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service 
from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them 
12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public interest. 


I thought they were land based? What I read is that being land based means that 
they can transmit at much higher power. 




I wasn’t aware that Dish had terrestrial facilities. I had forgotten their 
absorption into AT&T. 


So I retract my comments in that regard… They are a traditional telephant and I 
think that terrestrial 5G on 12Ghz is even less useful. 







OTOH, I think Starlink is most definitely an interesting product that does 
provide a clear path to reasonable alternatives to the incumbent telephants. 


Especially when you factor in mobility when they get there. No more roaming 
fees, all over the world. 




Yep… Probably one of the reasons DishT&T is trying to fight so hard to cause 
them grief. 


Owen 

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
 The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined 
 over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance 
 was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like 
 CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
>>> But is what Starlink saying true or not?
>>> 
>>> It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>> It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the 
>> Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the 
>> 12Ghz spectrum.
>> 
>> I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.
>> 
>> Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile 
>> service from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and 
>> granting them 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the 
>> public interest.
> I thought they were land based? What I read is that being land based means 
> that they can transmit at much higher power.

I wasn’t aware that Dish had terrestrial facilities. I had forgotten their 
absorption into AT&T.

So I retract my comments in that regard… They are a traditional telephant and I 
think that terrestrial 5G on 12Ghz is even less useful.

>> OTOH, I think Starlink is most definitely an interesting product that does 
>> provide a clear path to reasonable alternatives to the incumbent telephants.
> Especially when you factor in mobility when they get there. No more roaming 
> fees, all over the world.

Yep… Probably one of the reasons DishT&T is trying to fight so hard to cause 
them grief.

Owen

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/24/22 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:



On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas  wrote:


On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:

The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over 
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was never well 
understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a battle for 
12GHz, not 5G.

But is what Starlink saying true or not?

It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.

Mike

It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the Starlink 
modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the 12Ghz 
spectrum.

I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.

Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service 
from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them 
12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public interest.
I thought they were land based? What I read is that being land based 
means that they can transmit at much higher power.


OTOH, I think Starlink is most definitely an interesting product that does 
provide a clear path to reasonable alternatives to the incumbent telephants.
Especially when you factor in mobility when they get there. No more 
roaming fees, all over the world.



Mike

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service 
> from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them 
> 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public interest.

Hi Owen,

Did I misunderstand? I thought Dish/AT&T's plan was to use 12ghz for
-terrestrial- cell phone service, not satellite phone service. Towers
on the ground, not in the sky.

Towers in the sky are neither new nor controversial. Iridium, for
example, was based on the 2G GSM protocols modified for the bandwidth
and distances involved.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Joel Esler via NANOG]

> On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the 
> Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the 
> 12Ghz spectrum.
> 
> I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.


Exactly.  Why would they lie?

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 24, 2022, at 12:33 , Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
>> The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined 
>> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance 
>> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like 
>> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
> 
> But is what Starlink saying true or not?
> 
> It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
> 
> Mike

It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the Starlink 
modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the 12Ghz 
spectrum.

I have no reason to disbelieve their claims.

Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service 
from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them 
12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public interest.

OTOH, I think Starlink is most definitely an interesting product that does 
provide a clear path to reasonable alternatives to the incumbent telephants.

However, Dish isn’t exactly a traditional elephant, either.

Owen

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/24/22 9:09 AM, Chris Wright wrote:

The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over 
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was never well 
understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a battle for 
12GHz, not 5G.


But is what Starlink saying true or not?

It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.

Mike

Re: Help with broken routing in MTL (AS577 174 11647) Bell, Cogent, Me

[mike tancsa]

Looks to be fixed as of ~ 14:55 Eastern.

    ---Mike

On 6/24/2022 1:49 PM, mike tancsa wrote:
We noticed random traffic originating from AS577 stopped getting to 
our ASN via Cogent in Montreal at around 00:24 this morning. Based on 
the pattern I am guessing a broken next hop on one leg of a larger 
link ?  e.g. IP traffic leaving AS577 towards IP addresses in one of 
my /19s will 100% work for certain IPs and 100% fail for others all 
within that same /19.


e.g. from 142.112.93.72 (an IP originating in AS577) to one of the IPs 
below in my 64.7.128.0/19


64.7.134.1 100% fail
64.7.134.2 100% pass
64.7.134.3 fail
64.7.134.4 fail
64.7.134.5 fail
64.7.134.6 fail
64.7.134.7 100% pass
64.7.134.8 100% fail
64.7.134.9 fail
64.7.134.10 pass

Its just packets towards my ASN that are failing. Packets TO  577 via 
174 all work fine.


Traceroutes good and bad all look like this

% traceroute -s 142.112.93.72 -q1 -I 64.7.134.2
traceroute to 64.7.134.2 (64.7.134.2) from 142.112.93.72, 64 hops max, 
48 byte packets

 1  lns5-ottawa23_lo0.net.bell.ca (64.230.11.188)  10.507 ms
 2  64.230.98.68 (64.230.98.68)  17.539 ms
 3  tcore4-montreal02_1-9-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.79.127) 18.150 ms
 4  cr02-mtrlpq02ho6_bundle-ether1.net.bell.ca (142.124.127.251) 
13.787 ms

 5  bx1-montrealgz_et-0-0-5.net.bell.ca (64.230.26.135)  12.237 ms
* 6  **
 7  be2089.ccr21.ymq01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.45.113) 13.337 ms
 8  be3259.ccr31.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.205) 17.969 ms
 9  sentex.demarc.cogentco.com (38.104.158.78)  17.126 ms
10  agas-core1-em0.sentex.ca (67.43.129.251)  39.960 ms
11  agas-lns1c-c.sentex.ca (64.7.129.19)  32.171 ms
12  orbiting.anysphere.com (64.7.134.2)  49.336 ms

% traceroute -s 142.112.93.72 -q1 -I 64.7.134.1
traceroute to 64.7.134.1 (64.7.134.1) from 142.112.93.72, 64 hops max, 
48 byte packets

 1  lns5-ottawa23_lo0.net.bell.ca (64.230.11.188)  10.229 ms
 2  64.230.98.66 (64.230.98.66)  13.346 ms
 3  tcore3-montreal02_hu2-4-0-2.net.bell.ca (64.230.78.252) 12.660 ms
 4  cr01-mtrlpq02ho5_bundle-ether1.net.bell.ca (142.124.127.233) 
12.423 ms

 5  bx1-montrealgz_et-0-0-1.net.bell.ca (64.230.26.133)  12.225 ms
*6  **
 7  *
 8  *
 9  *
10  *
11  *

Not sure if hop 6 is a Bell device or Cogent device. I have a ticket 
open with Cogent, but they dont see any issues in their network. I am 
not a direct customer of Bell, so I cant open a ticket with them. Was 
hoping someone from AS577 would see this and take a look.


    ---Mike

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 9:09 AM Chris Wright
 wrote:
> This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.

It's a battle to use 12Ghz for 5G cell phone tech instead of the
satellite tech it was allocated for. You could drop the 5G from that
sentence and still be correct but nobody has proposed using 4G or
earlier cell phone tech in the 12Ghz spectrum.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report

[Routing Table Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net.

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

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

IPv4 Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 25 Jun, 2022

  BGP Table (Global) as seen in Japan.

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

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  901886
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  339734
Deaggregation factor:  2.65
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  434702
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 73325
Prefixes per ASN: 12.30
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   62911
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   25897
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10414
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:382
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  68
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 37447)  64
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   915
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:   920
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  39659
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   32893
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  156005
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:27
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:486
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   3068808320
Equivalent to 182 /8s, 234 /16s and 76 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   82.9
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   82.9
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.6
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  306109

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   235788
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   67048
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.52
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  230940
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:95601
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   12745
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   18.12
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   3670
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1751
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.7
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 32
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   7955
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  773659904
Equivalent to 46 /8s, 29 /16s and 29 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-151865
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 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, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:263451
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   120545
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.19
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   263700
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:126879
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:19034
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:

Help with broken routing in MTL (AS577 174 11647) Bell, Cogent, Me

[mike tancsa]

We noticed random traffic originating from AS577 stopped getting to our 
ASN via Cogent in Montreal at around 00:24 this morning. Based on the 
pattern I am guessing a broken next hop on one leg of a larger link ?  
e.g. IP traffic leaving AS577 towards IP addresses in one of my /19s 
will 100% work for certain IPs and 100% fail for others all within that 
same /19.


e.g. from 142.112.93.72 (an IP originating in AS577) to one of the IPs 
below in my 64.7.128.0/19


64.7.134.1 100% fail
64.7.134.2 100% pass
64.7.134.3 fail
64.7.134.4 fail
64.7.134.5 fail
64.7.134.6 fail
64.7.134.7 100% pass
64.7.134.8 100% fail
64.7.134.9 fail
64.7.134.10 pass

Its just packets towards my ASN that are failing. Packets TO  577 via 
174 all work fine.


Traceroutes good and bad all look like this

% traceroute -s 142.112.93.72 -q1 -I 64.7.134.2
traceroute to 64.7.134.2 (64.7.134.2) from 142.112.93.72, 64 hops max, 
48 byte packets

 1  lns5-ottawa23_lo0.net.bell.ca (64.230.11.188)  10.507 ms
 2  64.230.98.68 (64.230.98.68)  17.539 ms
 3  tcore4-montreal02_1-9-0-0.net.bell.ca (64.230.79.127) 18.150 ms
 4  cr02-mtrlpq02ho6_bundle-ether1.net.bell.ca (142.124.127.251)  13.787 ms
 5  bx1-montrealgz_et-0-0-5.net.bell.ca (64.230.26.135)  12.237 ms
* 6  **
 7  be2089.ccr21.ymq01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.45.113) 13.337 ms
 8  be3259.ccr31.yyz02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.205) 17.969 ms
 9  sentex.demarc.cogentco.com (38.104.158.78)  17.126 ms
10  agas-core1-em0.sentex.ca (67.43.129.251)  39.960 ms
11  agas-lns1c-c.sentex.ca (64.7.129.19)  32.171 ms
12  orbiting.anysphere.com (64.7.134.2)  49.336 ms

% traceroute -s 142.112.93.72 -q1 -I 64.7.134.1
traceroute to 64.7.134.1 (64.7.134.1) from 142.112.93.72, 64 hops max, 
48 byte packets

 1  lns5-ottawa23_lo0.net.bell.ca (64.230.11.188)  10.229 ms
 2  64.230.98.66 (64.230.98.66)  13.346 ms
 3  tcore3-montreal02_hu2-4-0-2.net.bell.ca (64.230.78.252)  12.660 ms
 4  cr01-mtrlpq02ho5_bundle-ether1.net.bell.ca (142.124.127.233) 12.423 ms
 5  bx1-montrealgz_et-0-0-1.net.bell.ca (64.230.26.133)  12.225 ms
*6  **
 7  *
 8  *
 9  *
10  *
11  *

Not sure if hop 6 is a Bell device or Cogent device. I have a ticket 
open with Cogent, but they dont see any issues in their network. I am 
not a direct customer of Bell, so I cant open a ticket with them. Was 
hoping someone from AS577 would see this and take a look.


    ---Mike

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:06 AM Chris Wright
 wrote:
>
> The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined 
> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance 
> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like 
> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.

I second that. I will try to use that last sentence if I have to get
involved that fight. Elsewhere, though, I do wish that starlink would
adopt
an fq_codel derived algorithm on the dishy and headends to smooth out
the wildly variable latencies some.

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1330193-spacex-starlink-internet-experience-performance/page5
>
> Chris
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On 
> Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
>
> It appears that Eric Kuhnke  said:
> >Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
> >that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing
> >two way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if
> >you ignore the existence of Starlink, there's a myriad of low bandwidth
> >but critical SCADA systems out there and remote locations on ku-band
> >two way geostationary terminals right now.
>
> I think the original thought was that the satellite service would be used in 
> rural areas and 5G in cities so there'd be geographic separation, but 
> Starlink is selling service all over the place.
>


-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

RE: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Chris Wright]

The term "5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined over 
the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance was never 
well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a 
battle for 12GHz, not 5G.

Chris


-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On 
Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

It appears that Eric Kuhnke  said:
>Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs 
>that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing 
>two way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if 
>you ignore the existence of Starlink, there's a myriad of low bandwidth 
>but critical SCADA systems out there and remote locations on ku-band 
>two way geostationary terminals right now.

I think the original thought was that the satellite service would be used in 
rural areas and 5G in cities so there'd be geographic separation, but Starlink 
is selling service all over the place.

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

[Nathan Stratton]

I use Comcast Business for my primary at home, but it is so bad that I was
forced to get Starlink as backup. I am not in a city, but close enough that
there would be issues.

><>
nathan stratton


On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:47 PM John Levine  wrote:

> It appears that Eric Kuhnke  said:
> >Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
> >that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing two
> >way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if you
> >ignore the existence of Starlink, there's a myriad of low bandwidth but
> >critical SCADA systems out there and remote locations on ku-band two way
> >geostationary terminals right now.
>
> I think the original thought was that the satellite service would be used
> in
> rural areas and 5G in cities so there'd be geographic separation, but
> Starlink
> is selling service all over the place.
>
>

ATT SWIP

[Dennis Burgess]

Looking for someone within the ATT org that can SWIP some of their IPs to an 
ISP.  Currently we are not getting responses from 
ipapplicat...@att.com.  Please feel free to 
contact me off-list 😊


[LTI-Full_175px]
Dennis Burgess

Mikrotik : Trainer, Network Associate, Routing Engineer, Wireless Engineer, 
Traffic Control Engineer, Inter-Networking Engineer, Security Engineer, 
Enterprise Wireless Engineer
Hurricane Electric: IPv6 Sage Level
Cambium: ePMP

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
Need MikroTik Cloud Management: https://cloud.linktechs.net
How did we do today?
[Gold 
Star][Green
 
Light][Yellow
 
Light][Red
 
Light]

RE: Verizon no BGP route to some of AS38365 (182.61.200.0/24)

[Matthew Huff]

From my limited vantage point it appears that there is some issue between 
Verizon & Baidu. Baidu has 182.61.0.0/16 registered, but is only advertising 
pieces of it globally (or at least from what I can see). In our tables,we are 
receiving none from Verizon of  the subnets that are advertised directly from 
Baidu (origin AS of 38365). The few within that registered range that have a 
different origin AS are coming to us from Verizon. For example:

*>   182.61.0.0/19144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.0.0/18144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.32.0/19   144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.64.0/18   204.148.121.2210 701 6453 55967 i
*182.61.128.0/23  204.148.121.2210 701 4134 4134 
4134 4134 4134 58540 ?
*>   182.61.130.0/24  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
23724 38365 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.130.0/23  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.131.0/24  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
23724 38365 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.132.0/23  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.132.0/22  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.134.0/23  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.136.0/22  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.136.0/21  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.140.0/22  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.144.0/21  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58466 38365 i
*>   182.61.144.0/20  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.160.0/19  204.148.121.2210 701 6453 55967 i
*>   182.61.192.0/23  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58540 i
*>   182.61.194.0/23  144.121.203.1410 46887 3356 4134 
58540 i
*>   182.61.200.0/22  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
23724 38365 i
*>   182.61.200.0/21  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.216.0/21  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.223.0/24  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i
*>   182.61.224.0/19  144.121.203.1410 46887 6461 4134 
58466 38365 38365 i

We are getting the 182.61.200.0/21 and 182.61.200.0/22 from all of our other 
peers:

asr-inet2#sh ip bgp 182.61.200.0/21
BGP routing table entry for 182.61.200.0/21, version 15779018
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table default)
  Advertised to update-groups:
 3
  Refresh Epoch 1
  54004 6128 1299 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365 119.75.208.225)
148.77.99.201 from 148.77.99.201 (24.157.4.25)
  Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate
  rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0
  Updated on Apr 29 2022 21:02:05 EDT
  Refresh Epoch 1
  46887 6461 4134 58466 38365 38365, (aggregated by 38365 119.75.208.225)
129.77.17.254 from 129.77.17.254 (129.77.40.7)
  Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, 
best
  rx pathid: 0, tx pathid: 0x0
  Updated on May 3 2022 04:02:50 EDT


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of holow29
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 5:49 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Verizon no BGP route to some of AS38365 (182.61.200.0/24)

I've been trying (to no avail) for over a month now to get Verizon to 
investigate their lack of BGP routing to 
182.61.200.0/24, which hosts Baidu Wangpan at  
pan.baidu.com (Baidu's cloud services/equivalent of 
Google Drive).

Easily verified through Verizon's Looking Glass.

We all know Verizon's BGP routing is a disaster, but does anyone have any ideas?