Re: bufferbloat-beating customer shaping via LibreQoS

[Jeremy Austin]

Thanks for the shoutout, Norman. Preseem isn’t at 50Gbps in 1U yet, but we
will get there.

I hope more folks listen to Dave, open vs. closed source solutions aside —
AQM makes a shocking amount of difference to quality of experience.

Jeremy



On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 2:14 PM Norman Jester  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 18, 2022, at 12:25 PM, Dave Taht  wrote:
> >
> > There's been a huge uptake in interest lately in doing better per
> > device and per customer shaping, especially for
> > ISPs, in the libreQoS.io project, which is leveraging the best ideas
> > bufferbloat project members have had over the
> > past decade (cake, bpf, xdp) to push an x86 middlebox well past the
> > 10Gbit barrier, on sub-2k boxes, with really
> > good stats on backlogs, drops, and ecn marks. I've long primarily
> > tried to get fq_codel and cake running on the CPE (most recently
> > mikrotik), and that's been taking too long.
> >
> > I have no idea to what extent members of this list have interest in
> > this, but if you know of a smaller ISP with bad bufferbloat,
> > please pass that link along? It's got ridiculously easier to set up as
> > a vm of late.
> >
> > There is presently a design discussion going on over here:
> >
> > https://github.com/rchac/LibreQoS/issues/57
> >
> > And by mentioning it here, today, I'm mostly asking what other real
> > life use cases we should try to tackle? What backend tools should we
> > try to integrate with?
> >
> > --
> > FQ World Domination pending:
> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>
> Take a look at Preseem as the features it has and graphs are great. WISPs
> need this type of system and would show added interest if it has those
> charts and metrics. The integrations are good also. HubSpot integration is
> a plus so we can pull user data out of it and add it to their HubSpot
> profiles.
>
> --
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)

[Jeremy Austin]

I'm in.

Jeremy Austin

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:38 AM Dennis Burgess 
wrote:

> Let me know where and when 
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess
>
> 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
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf
> Of Travis Garrison
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:12 PM
> To: Dave Taht 
> Cc: NANOG 
> Subject: RE: WISPA (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
>
> I will be attending also. We should try to do a meetup of the NANOG members
>
> Thank you
> Travis Garrison
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf
> Of Dave Taht
> Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:25 PM
> To: Tim Howe 
> Cc: NANOG 
> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported (was Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
>
> I am going to attend the WISPA conference in New Orleans next week.
> (anyone going)
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: Unimus Network Automation https://unimus.net/

[Jeremy Austin]

To be precise, Unimus allows some mass config push but is not a templating
system. It's superb for config pull. It's decent for simple, static config
pushes or on-the-box scripting pushes.

Tomas has mentioned publicly that he has built templated config systems in
the past, but I don't believe that work has been turned into a shipping
product yet.

I'm a happy paid user and have also met Tomas in person. I'm no expert, but
he and his team write what appears (by performance) to be beautiful java.

Jeremy Austin


On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:39 PM James Braunegg 
wrote:

> Dear All
>
>
>
> Anyone using Unimus for Network Automation ? https://unimus.net/
>
>
>
> i.e. mass configuration / push / pull configurations looking for something
> more powerful than rconfig for a Cisco Nexus and Juniper environment.
>
>
>
> And or happy with any other suggestions
>
>
>
> Kindest Regards
>
>
>
> *James Braunegg*
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D280A4.01865B60]
>
> 1300 769 972 / 0488 997 207 <1300%20769%20972>
>
> *ja...@micron21.com *
>
> www.micron21.com/
>
> [image: cid:image002.png@01D280A4.01865B60] <http://www.micron21.com/>
>
> [image: cid:image003.png@01D280A4.01865B60]
> <https://www.facebook.com/micron21/>
>
> [image: cid:image004.png@01D280A4.01865B60] <https://twitter.com/micron21>
>
> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/micron21> for important service
> and system updates.
>
> This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain
> privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it
> to anyone other than the addressee. If you have received this message in
> error please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then
> delete the message from your computer.
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: alternative to voip gateways

[Jeremy Austin]

What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but
you will lose CID before that.

As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have
particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application
if cheap is what makes sense.

My $.02

Jeremy Austin

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov 
wrote:

> Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other
> vendors.
>
>
> Regards,
> Andrey
>
> > 2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards 
> написал(а):
> >
> > I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote
> > village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go
> > nowhere past the MDF.
> >
> > The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers
> > because the  AKA previous owners of that
> > business  stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
> >
> > So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
> >
> > I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass
> > through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare
> > R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this
> > works.
> >
> > OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere
> > that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream
> > 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so
> > theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used
> > because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
> >
> > But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not
> > a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more
> > cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have
> > an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch
> > of individual gateways.
> >
> > This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on
> > a large scale.
> > Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method
> > acceptable or not for such a project size?
> >
> > most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where
> > gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all
> > our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the
> > beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats
> > not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: IS-IS on FRR - Is Anyone Running It?

[Jeremy Austin]

Mark,

I suggest you ask this directly on the FRR slack:

https://frrouting.slack.com/

I’m also interested to know who’s been trying FRR IS-IS in the wild. At
last check your former guess seemed to be correct and it wasn’t under
active development.

Regards
Jeremy Austin

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:32 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> So I finally decided to start messing around with FRR for a native IS-IS
> deployment for some of our FreeBSD-based Anycast services.
>
> I hit an issue that I posted to the FRR list that hasn't progressed beyond
> identifying a bug:
>
> 2020/03/21 03:12:36 ISIS: isis_send_pdu_bcast: sock_buff size 8192 is less
> than output pdu size 9014 on circuit em0
> 2020/03/21 03:12:36 ISIS: [EC 67108865] ISIS-Adj (1): Send L2 IIH on em0
> failed
>
> This is being addressed here:
>
> https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/6066
>
> But my main question was if there was a command or setting in zebra.conf
> and/or isisd.conf that I can use to define the MTU IS-IS should use to set
> itself up, rather than being informed by what the interface currently runs
> at. I've tried everything that is documented as well as stuff that isn't,
> but nothing is accepted or recognized.
>
> Either no one runs IS-IS on FRR, or much of the implementation is still
> being developed and/or hasn't been tested in the wild, i.e., no traction.
>
> I'm hoping there is someone on this list that has played with IS-IS on FRR
> to point me in the right direction.
>
> The setup is FRR 7.3 on FreeBSD-12.1. Thanks.
>
>
> Mark.
>
-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: Stupid Question maybe?

[Jeremy Austin]

You may find this helpful in your search for knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing

"Classful" networking is rarely useful other than for understanding How We
Got Here.

There's a handy table in the linked article which expresses each IPv4 mask
length in relation to how many A, B, or C networks it is.

jermudgeon

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:37 PM Joe  wrote:

>
> Apologizes in advance for a simple question. I am finding conflicting
> definitions of Class networks. I was always under the impression that a
> class "A" network was a /8 a class "B" network was a /16 and a class "C"
> network was a /24. Recently, I was made aware that a class "A" was indeed a
> /8 and a class "B" was actually a /12 (172.16/172.31.255.255) while a
> class "C" is actually a /16.
>
> Is this different depending on the IP segment, i.e. if it is part of a
> RC1918 group it is classed differently (maybe a course I missed?) Or aren't
> all IP's classed the same.
> I was always under the impression, /8 = A, /16 = B, /24=C, so rightly, or
> wrongly I've always seen 10.x.x.x as "A", and 192.168.x.x as "B", with
> 172.16/12 as one that just a VLSM between the two.
>
> Again, apologizes for the simple question, just can't seem to find a solid
> answer.
>
> Happy holidays all the same!
> -Joe
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Re: Extending network over a dry pair

[Jeremy Austin]

For a comparison of distance to capacity on copper, see
http://www.impulse-corp.co.uk/knowledge-base/transmission-distance-and-speed-differences-between-shdsl-and-vdsl2.htm

You might be able to pair bond -- if you had more than one pair.

If wireless isn't possible, you're likely needing satellite.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:35 PM Andrew Latham  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Nick Bogle  wrote:
>
>> A quick question for you guys;
>>
>> If you had a single dry pair (pair of copper wires originally for phones)
>> to a remote site that was around 6 miles away, what would you use? We
>> currently are just extending a T1 line to this site, but 1.5Mbps isn't
>> cutting it anymore. Unfortunately it's a research site on a federally
>> protected wildlife preserve so we can't run any new infrastructure (fiber
>> etc) and it isn't in a geographical place where point to point wireless is
>> practical. We were thinking there is some sort of network extender that
>> uses some form of DSL for higher bandwidth capacity.
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>
> Look for an SHDSL Ethernet Extender
>
> --
> - Andrew "lathama" Latham -
>


-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Re: Oct. 3, 2018 EAS Presidential Alert test

[Jeremy Austin]

I received it. On AT, but not on AT Wifi Calling — I got it about :30
EDT, when I went outside within range of a 4G signal.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:22 AM Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:

> Did anyone on AT or an iPhone receive the test today? I believe it was
> supposed to happen at 2:18 EDT, followed by one on broadcast radio at 2:20
> EDT.
>
> I’m in CDT, so 1:18 and 1:20 p.m. CDT.
>
> Message was heard on my desk radio at 1:21:35 p.m. CDT but as of the
> sending of this at 1:52 p.m. CDT, nothing on phones. I have an office full
> of AT iPhones and not a single one of them alerted.
>
> FEMA says https://www.fema.gov/emergency-alert-test
>
> "Cell towers will broadcast the WEA test for approximately 30 minutes
> beginning at 2:18 p.m. EDT. During this time, WEA compatible cell phones
> that are switched on, within range of an active cell tower, and whose
> wireless provider participates in WEA should be capable of receiving the
> test message. Some cell phones will not receive the test message, and cell
> phones should only receive the message once."
>
> My wife, with a Sprint iPhone, received the test.
>
>
> 
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> a...@andyring.com
>
>

-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Heritage NetWorks <https://heritagenet.works/> - Whitestone Power &
Communications - Vertical Broadband, LLC <http://verticalbroadband.com/>

Re: IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

[Jeremy Austin]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:56 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
> On 6/19/18 8:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > MikroTik is getting there but most people are just not enabling it either.
>
>
> RouterOS still has "will not fix" IPv6 bugs, so that doesn't help shops
> dependent on Mikrotik want to move forward with deploying it.

Quick, somebody port FRR to Tile…



-- 
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.com

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Heritage NetWorks - Whitestone Power & Communications - Vertical Broadband, LLC

Re: Temp at Level 3 data centers

[Jeremy Austin]

My 0.041 BTC:

1) For small facilities, without separate temperature-controlled UPS zones,
the optimum temperature for lead-acid batteries may be the lower bound.
77°F is optimal, with significant reduction in battery life even 15°F above
that. Given that batteries' internal temperature will be higher than
ambient, 80° set point is not stupid. I run cooler, FWIW.

2) Headroom. I try to have documented for each facility the climb in
degrees per hour (determined empirically) as a backup so I know required
response times when AC failure occurs.

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Naslund, Steve <snasl...@medline.com>
wrote:

>
> Bottom line 80 F input air is too hot in my opinion and apparently the
> equipment's opinion as well.
>
> --
Jeremy Austin
jhaus...@gmail.co <jhaus...@gmail.com>m

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell

Heritage NetWorks <https://heritagenet.works/> - Whitestone Power &
Communications - Vertical Broadband, LLC <http://verticalbroadband.com/>

Re: Puerto Rico Internet Exchange

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Arturo,
>
> Good call. I believe the funds are coming from the USF? (Mike Hammet knows
> more about this than me). I had conversations with multiple congressional
> staffers about using USF funds for IXP development. They're in for good
> projects. The USG and US congress is more than willing to fund IXPs using
> USF funds. Commercial or otherwise, depending on the bnenefits and commits.
>
>
Hi Martin

I'm curious about the mechanism for funding such a thing. Historically the
majority of USF funds have gone to telcos rather than ISPs, if I am not
mistaken.

I'd love to continue this discussion off list if necessary.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Re: EdgeRouter Infinity as medium-sized "IXP Peering Router"?

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote:

>
> EdgeRouter is... meh. If I was looking at that class of gear I'd go with a
> Mikrotik.


Job,

There is a bit of a price differential here, depending on whether you need
SFP+; the Infinity is "dead cheap", and has fairly opaque BGP
daemon+debugging tools. Also still technically a beta product. Not sure if
it meets your automation requirements. I wouldn't want to be deploying them
in a redundant pair, myself, but just when you say something can't be done…

Mikrotik's CCR1072: 10-gig router (shipping, not anything that's just been
announced) has an API, can certainly handle a few tens of thousands of
routes fine (single core BGP though), but I can't vouch for its ability to
do IMIX or *flow at line rate. This has probably been stress tested by
somebody. I doubt the sampling is in hardware.

If you don't need 10G ports then your options expand considerably. Do you
have a target throughput?

-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311 office
(907) 803-5422 cell
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Re: Net neutrality filing

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Satchell <l...@satchell.net> wrote:

>
> It does have a few color pictures, though.  And one comic strip.
>

Upvote for use of 'caisson'.

There is at least one thing that Sen. Ted Stevens got right; in the fiber
era, the Internet really *is* a series of tubes.

I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
(parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
municipal boundaries qua boundaries. At least it seems to me that you are
wanting to encourage rural development, given that the current broadband
'divide' is largely a rural vs. urban one, according to the 2016 Broadband
Progress Report.

Natural monopolies worked for electrification. Do you anticipate Title I
providers as being sufficient to the task of narrowing this divide, with or
without a federal incentives program? Historically, federal incentives have
largely gone to Title II providers or their affiliated ISPs, if I
understand the math correctly.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/

Jeremy Austin

Re: RFC2544 Testing Equipment

[Jeremy Austin]

JW, have you moved on to EtherSAM? That's what I'd be looking for myself.
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:28 AM James Breeden  wrote:

> When we had to do this once in a blue moon, we just bought a pair of old
> Agilent Framescopes off ebay. They worked great but we had issues getting
> reporting out of them. They had RJ45 and SFP on them.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+james=arenalgroup...@nanog.org] On
> Behalf Of Nick Olsen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:23 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RFC2544 Testing Equipment
>
>  Greetings all,
>
>  Looking for a good test set. Primary use will be testing L2 circuits
> (It'll technically be VPLS, But the test set will just see L2). Being able
> to test routed L3 would also be useful. Most of the sets I've seen are two
> sided, A "reflector" at the remote side, And the test set in hand run by
> the technician.
>
>  Looking to test up to 1Gb/s at various packet sizes, Measure Packet loss,
> Jitter..etc. Primarily Copper, But if it had some form of optical port, I
> wouldn't complain. Outputting a report that we can provide to the customer
> would be useful, But isn't mandatory. Doesn't need anything fancy, Like
> MPLS awareness, VLAN ID's..etc.
>
>
>Nick Olsen
>  Sr. Network Engineer
>  Florida High Speed Internet
>  (321) 205-1100 x106
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent

[Jeremy Austin]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Job Snijders <j...@instituut.net> wrote:

> > There are, of course, corner cases. But in general, single-homed
> > people shouldn’t be using BGP.
>
> There are numerous reasons to use BGP when single-homed:
>
> - as preparation to multi-home in the (near) future
> - ability to quickly change providers
> - to use BGP based blackholing features
> - to save time on provisioning work (adding new prefixes becomes a
>   matter of just announcing and updating IRR/RPKI).
> - loadbalanacing / loadsharing across multiple links
> - ability to use bgp communities for traffic engineering
>
> In other words, if you have your own IP space, I'd recommend to get your
> own ASN and use BGP.


I concur with Job.

If you are single-homed but care about having proper L3 redundancy (not
just VRRP or equivalent), BGP is a must.

ARIN has a policy to allow this, but it is not spelled out with an excess
of clarity. I suspect it is not often used; see NRPM section 5.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

Re: External BGP Controller for L3 Switch BGP routing

[Jeremy Austin]

Tore Anderson:

https://www.redpill-linpro.com/sysadvent/2016/12/09/slimming-routing-table.html

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> A while back there was a discussion on how to do optimized (dynamic) BGP
> routing on a L3 switch which is only capable of handing a subset of BGP
> Routing table.
>
> Someone has pointed out that there was a project to do just that, and had
> posted a link to a presentation on a European operator (Ireland ? ) who had
> done some code to take Exabgp and create such a setup..
>
> (I am going by memory... )... Needless to say I am trying to find that
> link, or name of that project.
>
> Anyone who can help in refreshing my memory with the link (my search skill
> are failing to find that presentation !)
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Many Thanks in Advance.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
>



-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

Re: buying a /24 ipv4

[Jeremy Austin]

Hilco Streambank is ipv4auctions.com

They are reasonably competent.
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:42 PM Javier J  wrote:

> What are the going rates these days in north america.
>
> What are some good sites to get a block?
>
>
> In the process now of setting up an Org and AS with Arin for a client.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> - Javier
>

Re: University of Alaska AS7774 NOC?

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Jeremy Austin <jhaus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If there's anyone on call at network operations for the University of
> Alaska, AS7774, please contact me or ACS NOC, who have an open trouble
> ticket.
>
> We appear to be having BPG reachability issues on your ACS peering.
>

I want to extend thanks to the folks at University of Alaska, several of
whom contacted me immediately.

The issue turned out to be with ACS (AS7782), whose network engineers are
also on NANOG and called me almost right away, even the one on leave whom
the NOC couldn't reach.

That's what I call service. Thanks again, you deserve a shout out.


-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

University of Alaska AS7774 NOC?

[Jeremy Austin]

If there's anyone on call at network operations for the University of
Alaska, AS7774, please contact me or ACS NOC, who have an open trouble
ticket.

We appear to be having BPG reachability issues on your ACS peering.

Thank you,

-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

Re: CALEA

[Jeremy Austin]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Justin Wilson <li...@mtin.net> wrote:

> What is the community hearing about CALEA?
>

Crickets?


-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

Re: Juniper vMX evaluation - how?

[Jeremy Austin]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Bruce Simpson <b...@fastmail.net> wrote:

>
> Is some special magic required to acquire an evaluation copy? The 60 day
> trial license is directly downloadable from the above link, but the tarball
> is not. $CLIENT was just referred to it by $RESELLER.


I'd be interested as well — I submitted a form, nothing but crickets.


-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

[Jeremy Austin]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:55 AM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

>
> Please don't guess (like, you know, MaxMind does.)  USPS has its own
> database of all of the deliverable addresses in the country.  They
> have their problems, but give or take data staleness as buildings
> are built or demolished, that's not one of them.


A qualifier.

USPS has a database of *most* of the deliverable addresses in the country.

I'm in an unorganized borough. The USPS actually has no mandate, funding or
lever that I can pull (that I can find) to keep their database up to date.
Easily 30% of the legitimate addresses in my area are not geocodable nor in
the USPS database.

I suspect that there are areas of my state with an even worse percentage of
unavailable data.

UPS and FedEx rely on the USPS database, but will not lift a finger to fix
this gap.

Even as a municipal body there is no available federal mechanism for
updating the database. I've tried multiple times over 15+ years.



So yeah, USPS' database does have its problems.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Heritage NetWorks
Whitestone Power & Communications
Vertical Broadband, LLC

Schedule a meeting: http://doodle.com/jermudgeon

Re: Fiber to the home specialists/consultants?

[Jeremy Austin]

Ditto.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM Daniel Rohan  wrote:

> Can anyone point me at a firm that does or consults on FTTH from a
> technical *and* business perspective?
>
> Off-list responses would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>

Re: small automatic transfer switches

[Jeremy Austin]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Josh Reynolds 
wrote:
>
> better yet, $134
>
http://www.amazon.com/CyberPower-PDU20MHVT10AT-Metered-Power-Distribution/dp/B00NEHXESQ/ref=sr_1_17?s=electronics=UTF8=1453926782=1-17=cyberpower+ats


That unit is 220V. I bought it once by mistake. Josh' first link is the
15A/120V version.

If all you need is a single port (still 15A limit), and can handle a 70ms
switching time, I've had success with this marine transfer switch:

http://www.amazon.com/Xantrex-Inline-Transfer-Relay-PROwatt/dp/B00JGXAE62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=1453927515=8-1=xantrex+in-line+transfer

You'll have to add your own ends/outlets, as it is intended to be hardwired
in place.

Re: Best Source for ARIN Region /24

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> Some expansions under my ISP hat may lead to needing some address space,
> so I'd be interested in where people are getting space from as well.
> Smaller blocks, though, /22 and smaller.
>

Me too, but "will" instead of "may".

Jeremy Austin

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to
> 128kbps.
>
> You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
>
> If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase
> additional
> data within that month on a one-time basis.
>
> I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If
> Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming
> their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
>
>
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy).

I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness
models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.


> >
> > The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a
> free-feeding
> > usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two
> > prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based
> > model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost
> you
> > $4/week. Is this OK?”
>
> Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce
> stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control
> pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without
> warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks.
>
> That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools,
> the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if
> their data usage remains somewhat opaque.
>

>From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique
itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob,
like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit — as
long as it was plainly spelled out.


>
>
> > In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue
> from
> > overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as
> > it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of
> users
> > won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little
> incentive
> > to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in
> inhibiting
> > the growth of video or usage in general.
>
> How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are
> doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have
> overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing.
>
> The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less
> interesting exercise.
>
> Owen
>
>
On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in
between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network,
caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an
AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use
less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing.

I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is.

How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per
customer referred to recently?

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
>>
>>
> This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access
> Policy).
>
> I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness
> models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
>
>
> What is your favorite?
>

Does a dog have the Buddha nature?

My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a
concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of
spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.

Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow
equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees
difficult to manage.

After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription
ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some
experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a
gray area — at least until I understand it better.



>
>
> However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your
> “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing.
>
> Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks
> like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually.
>

I agree.


>
>
>
> How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per
> customer referred to recently?
>
>
> I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so
> that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide.
>

Heh. Gary said it better — it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on
one set of sectors.

The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which
is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms
over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me.

And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels?

I apologize if this has grown off-topic.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
>
> My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a
> concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of
> spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.
>
>
> That’s not a billing model… We were talking about billing models.
>
> What’s your favorite billing model?
>

Heh. I had said "fairness" — perhaps we both support unfair billing but
fair supply?

Two sides of the same tarnished coin, supply and demand.

Which model I prefer… Diogenes, when asked what kind of wine he liked best,
replied "The wine of others."

As a user in that top 10%, I like my bandwidth subsidized by my unwitting
peers. As an ISP, I'm managing to sell it AYCE, but I'm small potatoes. My
opinions are my own but largely informed by what I observe for customer
satisfaction, contrasting models in an uncompetitive market.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:

>
> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse
> to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have
> shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based
> on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)


I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal
coverage, but I'll abstain.

Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users
using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail.

As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer
have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail
happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think
I disagree that it's the best model for everybody.

Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers
are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put
good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic
updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage
your bandwidth, in general:

The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding
usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two
prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based
model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you
$4/week. Is this OK?"

I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down,
but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a
'reasonable' $/gig.  I'm working to step into the hole they left, and
you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it.

In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from
overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as
it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users
won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive
to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting
the growth of video or usage in general.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

Re: Modem as a service?

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote:

>
> There might be a product idea here, if no-one's done it already:
> Something like a RaspBerry Pi, running off a lithium battery, with a
> recharge circuit and something to detect a power outage. Add a 3G/4G
> card to send an SMS alert, put it all in a box, plug it into power. Only
> configuration needed is setting the SMS target(s)... If you made it
> network addressable (on 3G/4G) it could send emails as well.


Almost exactly my scenario.

While you're at it, add IP/serial links to console servers and tunnel in.
I've got this as the only OOB option for sites with no copper. Low
bandwidth 3G plan.

-- 
Jeremy Austin
Whitestone Power & Communications
(907) 895-2311
(907) 803-5422
jhaus...@gmail.com

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Todd Underwood 
wrote:

>
> you already know that that's not how the internet in the rural west works.
>  it's fine.  smile and nod and pretend that they are making sensible claims
> and move back to trying to figure out how to make things work on your own
> network.
>

Thank you, Todd. While I must take some exception to your use of the word
'hinterlands' [1] rather than 'frontier', you're right on the mark
everywhere else. :)

With all the talk around updating BCPs, perhaps we also need IUPs --
Interesting Uncommon Practices: the edge cases which contrast to, but do
not invalidate, the middle.

-J

[1] Kleinfeld, "The Frontier Romance"
http://www.newsminer.com/features/sundays/book_reviews/kleinfeld-s-book-explores-the-romance-of-the-frontier/article_57da7bda-e15c-11e2-9281-0019bb30f31a.html

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jeremy Austin]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North
> America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my *continent*
> -- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP
> transit market within Alaska that I am aware of. Would love to be proved
> wrong. Heck, GCI and ACS (the two providers with such fiber) only directly
> peered a handful of years ago.
>
>
> Alaska is in the same continent as Canda and the Contiguous US.
>

Geographically yes, but not IP-topologically. It may strictly speaking be
an exaggeration to speak of continental latencies, but we do feel a bit cut
off up here. From me to Ohio is just about twice as far as from me to CA.
The distance from the eastern US to Portugal is only about twice as long as
the Anchorage to Seattle route.


> VANIX (Vancouver), CIX (Calgary), Manitoba-IX (Winnipeg), WPGIX
> (WInnipeg), TORIX (Toronto),
> and an exchange in Montreal (I forget the name) exist as well as a few
> others in Canada (I think
> there’s even one out in the maritimes).
>

If there were ever an Alaska-to-Canada pipeline or gas line built, no doubt
there could be fiber. To my knowledge no non-Arctic Alaska to Yukon route
exists or is in public planning. I think AT may have some microwave. The
Yukon has less overall population than the city of Fairbanks, AK, and it
would be difficult to justify a fiber build, say, from Tok to Whitehorse,
without other reasons. I'm not looking at great circle routes at the
moment, but an overland route would probably be *longer* from Anchorage to
Vancouver than the current undersea routes.


> There are tons of exchanges all over the contiguous US.
>

Exactly. Now imagine an area — Alaska not including Anchorage — twice the
size of Texas, with the population of Pittsburgh, in tiny clumps far apart.
It is *possible* that the lack of IX in Alaska is due solely to geography
and not, say, to an inadequately competitive ISP environment.

I’m surprised that there isn’t yet an exchange point in Juneau or
> Anchorage, but that
> does, indeed, appear to be the case. Perhaps you should work with some
> other ISPs
> in your state to form one.
>

Juneau, I'm not so surprised; how many other cities that small and isolated
have IXes? I'm curious. It's an interesting prospect, at least for some
value of $location. Anyone interested, hit me up.

According to this:
> http://www.alaskaunited.com
>
> There is subsea fiber to several points in AK from Seattle and beyond.
>

Said undersea fiber is owned by GCI and ACS. There are some pending routes
west and north, I believe.


>
> And on a continental basis, quite a bit of undersea fiber in other landing
> stations
> around the coastal areas of the contiguous 48.
>
> If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
> you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
> and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable,
> ignorant or both.
>
> Interestingly both statewide providers *do* provide both IPv4 and IPv6
> peering. The trick is to find a spot where there's true price competition.
> The 3 largest statewide ISPs have fiber that meets a mere three city blocks
> from one of my POPs, but there's no allowable IX. I'm looking at you, AT
>
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by “allowable IX”, to the best of my knowledge,
> anyone
> can build an IX anywhere.
>

 I should have been more clear. No allowable IX *at the nearest fiber
meetup to me*.

It would be illuminating to see what minimum peak hour per-capita bw is
necessary to make rural IX pay, and for what value of $rural.

"Alaska suffers from… an abject lack of density." —Joe Freddoso, Mighty
River/USAC

Re: /27 the new /24

[Jeremy Austin]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun <ja...@towardex.com> wrote:

>
> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport
> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center.  Once
> you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in the
> competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6
> service.
>

The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North
America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my *continent*
-- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP
transit market within Alaska that I am aware of. Would love to be proved
wrong. Heck, GCI and ACS (the two providers with such fiber) only directly
peered a handful of years ago.


> If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
> you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
> and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable,
> ignorant or both.
>

Interestingly both statewide providers *do* provide both IPv4 and IPv6
peering. The trick is to find a spot where there's true price competition.
The 3 largest statewide ISPs have fiber that meets a mere three city blocks
from one of my POPs, but there's no allowable IX. I'm looking at you, AT

-- 
Jeremy Austin
Whitestone Power & Communications, Alaska