Re: IPv6
On Nov 21, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Mike Tancsa m...@sentex.net wrote: On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote: Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or 2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent. Interesting. I noticed a similar issue with ipv6.cnn.com today. I dont see it via TATA, but see it via Cogent. So whats the story behind it and ARIN not being seen through cogent ? Is it due to no v6 relation bewtween he.net and Cogent ? 2620:0:2200:8::::8901 (whats with the crazy 8s?) Wow. CNN now has IPv6. That's awesome. I guess i missed the memo. So, major players with IPv6 are? ipv6.cnn.com (just book marked it) ipv6.comcast.net ipv6.google.com (or you can have it all with a white-list) www.ipv6.cisco.com www.v6.facebook.com m.v6.facebook.com ipv6.t-mobile.com (admittedly, not major a major content source, but it's mine) Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/ I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos. Cameron === http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta === Don't forget ipv6.netflix.com... John And, then debunking the dual-stack is too risky notion is www.ucla.edu (which is a big business by most measures) and serves and A records without a white-list or special FQDN. I have predicted that by the end of 2011 nearly ~50% of my network traffic (mobile provider) can be served by IPv6 natively end to end. I think a lot of folks that measure Facebook and Google (including YouTube) traffic today can see how that is feasible given current volumes and rates of growth. Hence, the viability of IPv6-only endpoints (especially mobile) with NAT64/DNS64 as truly connecting the IPv4 long-tail remaining 50% that will continue to shrink as more major sites follow the CNN's path. Cameron === http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta ===
Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost effective and reliable last mile solution. IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is the only way to go in rural. The benefits of licensed frequencies are typically lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending devices. The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets. Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own requirements and challenges to be considered. John On Saturday, September 18, 2010, Georges-Keny PAUL paulgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, My team is working on technical and technological specifications of a document for the deployment of Internet service on public frequencies in rural areas. We welcome your thoughts on the topic in terms of previous experiences and, well sure, you recommendation in terms of equipment. You should note that the environment in question is very mountainous with very precarious infrastructure conditions: no electricity, poor access, etc. We would like to deploy a service at minimal cost, using mainly open source software. All comments, suggestions, recommendations, draft, success stories are well come. Feel free to contact me for additional information. Warms regards, Georges-Keny PAUL
