Re: What do you think about this airline vs 5G brouhaha?
I’m guessing you are not a pilot, one reason aviation is resistant to change is its history is written in blood,Unlike tech aviation is incremental change and painstaking testing and documentation of that testing. When that does not happen we get stuff like the 737 Max debacle Aviation is the antithesis of ‘Move fast and break things mentality’ for a very good reason safety. On my flying club’s plane every replacement part comes with a pedigree which is added to the plane’s maintenance log upon installation and the reason for removing the old one recorded Imagine how much easier our networks would be to maintain if we had records down to the last cable tie in the data center. If there was a bug in a SFP+ for instance all of them, when they were installed and by who and what supplier they came from was readily available sure would make my life easier. The reasoning behind that massive pile of documents (pilot joke ‘a plane is not ready to fly until the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the airplane’) is that if a failure is traced to a component all of them can be traced and removed from service. On a Airbus for instance all the takeoff and landing safety systems are tied to the RadAlt. The EU has strict rules about where the c-band can be used as does Japan both use the 120 second rule c-band devices not allowed in areas where the the aircraft is in its beginning/ending 2 minutes of flight. So the REST of the world got c-band right the US not so much On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:59 AM Dennis Glatting wrote: > On Tue, 2022-01-18 at 12:29 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > I really don't know anything about it. It seems really late to be > > having > > this fight now, right? > > > > I worked in aviation as a technologist. Aviation is resistant to change. > Any change. When you fly older aircraft, be aware that the software is > old. Very old. As in some of the vendors long ago stopped supporting the > software kind of old, assuming the vendors still exist. > > Aviation didn't wake up one day with the sudden appearance of 5G. They > knew it was comming. They, aviation themselves, are heavily involved in > standards. Aviation had plenty of time to test, correct, and protest. > > What aviation now wants is a 5G exclusion zone around airports, or what > I sarcastically call "a technology exclusion zone," which tends to be > businesses and homes. What is aviation going to do when 6G comes along? > A new WiFi standard is implemented? Any other unforeseen future > wired/wireless technologies? Or perhaps cell phones should go back to > Morse Code for aviation's sake? > > 🤷♂️️ > > > -- > Dennis Glatting > Numbers Skeptic >
Re: What do you think about this airline vs 5G brouhaha?
Um the Lightsquared monster is back stronger than ever however it has a new name Ligado Networks Yes we now have something which everyone agrees will hose every civillian GPS receiver out there. But hey thats the user’s problem. I’m glad i know how to use a sextant…. Perhaps someone will come up with a low priced INS. The 747 was the last airliner which used a INS.Of course a improperly initialized INS was responsible for the Korean Air shoot down incident…. Of course this will also hose our NTP servers and 802.11ad/ay networks and any other network kit that uses GPS. On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 9:34 PM Bryan Fields wrote: > On 1/18/22 9:03 PM, Brandon Martin wrote: > > One thing the FCC could potentially do to wipe some egg of their > > collective faces, here, is mandate that transmitters operating in this > > newly allocated wireless band face additional scrutiny for spurious > > emissions in the radio altimeter band as well as the guard band between > > the two services and a similar bandwidth above the radio altimeter band. > > The issue is not one of out of band emissions, but rather close but strong > signals near the receiver pass band. This can cause compression of the > first > RF amplifier stage and de-sensitize the receiver so it cannot hear the > intended signal. I won't get into the physics, but it is difficult to > realize > an effective filter that will permit 4200-4400 with low loss and attenuate > everything else starting at 4200 MHz and down. The narrower the filter is, > the higher the loss is. The greater the stopband attenuation is, the more > elements required and more ripple is present in the pass band. Now granted > for avionics, this is doable in the thousands of dollars, but older radar > altimeters will not have this level of filtering, nor can you slap a > filter on > avionics without manufacturer support. > > Further complicating this, radar altimeters in the 4200-4400 MHz band are > frequency modulating continuous wave transmitters. In this configuration > the > frequency is not closed loop controlled, it can be anywhere in the 200 MHz > band, as it's modulating a free running VCO nominally at 4300 MHz. This is > a > non-issue as the transmitter is used for the receiver reference, so they > are > locked to the same free-running oscillator. > > Only in recent avionics has the receiver been improved via DSP circuits and > FFT to do real time spectral analysis and pick out the right receive > signal. > The older altimeters out there use simple zero crossing counting to > determine > the frequency of the strongest signal. This leaves them open to potential > interference by strong near band signals. Exasperating this is the poor > filtering on the RF receiver in 99% of altimeters when dealing with wide > band > signals. > > So can this LTE at C band work? Yes. > Will it require upgrades to avionics and standards? Yep. > > Last time this sort of change out was needed Sprint/Nextel bought every > major > public safety agency new radios. One could plot the decline of Sprint > stock > to an uptick in Motorola stock. > > This reminds me of the Lightsquared case where they were using adjacent > spectrum to GPS for low speed data from satellites, and wanted to add in > repeaters on the ground, or an ATC/ancillary terrestrial component. > Sirrus XM > does this, in tunnels and such and it's just the rather low power repeater > of > the same signal from the satellite. Lightsquared wanted this the be a high > power LTE signal, which wouldn't "fill in" their satellite signal but make > an > LTE network they would sell access on. Do to the proximity to the GPS > bands > and the rather poor selectivity of the GPS receiver, it would have > dramatically limited GPS performance. > > The issue here is that Lightsquared was too small. The establishment > wireless > carriers know that commissioners don't work at the FCC for life, and have > paid > lobbyists crawling all over capital hill. > -- > Bryan Fields > > 727-409-1194 - Voice > http://bryanfields.net >
Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine
Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds. I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service, unfortunately there are geopolitical realities like access to space which is likely to be negatively impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down these birds.Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the debris will burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would stay forever. On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:44 PM Phineas Walton wrote: > This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty > ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, this > is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them. > > Phin > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark wrote: > >> So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free >> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can’t >> do business in the country? >> >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: >> >>> On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote: >>> >>> > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base >>> > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump out >>> > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or would it >>> > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be >>> constrained >>> > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if >>> > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing >>> router. >>> > Could tables on the satellites explode? >>> >>> If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight to >>> the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink will relay >>> satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected earth >>> station is in reach. >>> >>> From the linked article: >>> >>> "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of Starlink in >>> providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about how the >>> company would use links between the satellites to create a network that >>> could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from >>> installing ground infrastructure for distribution. >>> >>> As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from using that >>> capability, Musk had a simple answer. >>> >>> “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said." >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net >>> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 >>> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV >>> >>>
Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine
The Russians have several ASAT systems not all of them are ground based. Remember they also have that grappler which locks onto satellites and destroys them. I think this conflict will be the first one where some of the battles will be fought in orbit ie the ultimate ‘high ground’ the NATO countries have kept to the UN treaties on not militarizing space. Other countries well not so much On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:35 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 08:51:05 -0500, Dorn Hetzel said: > > > Yeah, if Russia needs one 1st stage booster for every bird they kill, and > > SpaceX needs one 1st stage booster for every 50 they put up Yes, > > Russia is bigger than SpaceX, but that's a tremendous ratio. > > Plus the asymmetry is even worse than that > > Elon can use that *same* first stage booster to launch *another* 50 > next week, while the Russians need to get a *new* booster for shooting > down the next bird. > > That's the *real* game changer in what SpaceX is doing >
Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine
Great presentation! On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:16 AM Matthew Petach wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 07:17 Dorn Hetzel wrote: > >> One hopes there is some respectable, perhaps even paranoid, encryption on >> his control functions. >> >>> > Talk about timely! We just had a very nice presentation about this in > Austin: > > > https://storage.googleapis.com/site-media-prod/meetings/NANOG84/2479/20220215_Coggin_Pwned_In_Space_v1.pdf > > https://youtu.be/fCVs3VKUyJ8 > > I'd link to the abstract itself if I could, but it looks like the mobile > view of the nanog site won't let me do that. ^_^; > > Matt > >
Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.
I’d say ‘it depends’ on the sales organization being willing to sell it. The non-profit also has to realize that they get the same service restoration speeds and customer support that a residential customer gets. On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 8:24 PM Mark Seiden wrote: > att 1Gb/sec symmetric fiber is about $70/month. > > their “business class” service costs >10x that price. > > if i don’t want an SLA, does anything keep a non-profit organization from > ordering (from att or sonic) residential service at what normally would be > considered a business location? > sonic seems to overlay on the att fiber network (in parts of the sf bay > area)? > > (say, for example, you have a caretaker who lives on premises and you > terminate the fiber in or near the caretaker’s apartment…) > > (would this violate some tariff? could they refuse to install?) > > (for me this harkens back to much earlier days where i would order dry > copper loops intended for alarm purposes and run data or conditioned audio > over them…)
Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!
Definitely try the smoked meat sandwich I recommend asking for 'medium fat' used to visit Montreal frequently pre pandemic On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 9:22 PM Randy Bush wrote: > once upon a time at an ietf in ville de québec, i was out to dinner with > a crew of fellow researchers all french, well one belgian. i can > usually read a french menu, but was having serious problems so sought > help from my dinner companions. they were struggling with the same > parts i was. > > randy >
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
Here’s the problem FCC ignored the rest of the world and EU’s 5G deployment in the rest of the world 5G base stations have half the EIRP of their US counterparts and the antenna systems use downtilt so 5G coverage on the ground is better and RADALT operation is largely unaffected except for helicopters in physical proximity to a base station. 5G/RADALT compatibility is only a problem in the US because of how the usual suspects decided to deploy the C band 5G base stations. Had the US followed global 5G best practices we would not even be having this discussion, US carriers wanting to deploy as few towers/base stations as possible is the proximate cause for this mess. As a result we’ve degraded Aviation safety and US has a poor 5G experience compared to the rest of the world a worst of all worlds scenario. I’m a pilot(with a radalt in a small plane) and 5G user objectively my 5G experience is worse than 4G speed wise and i have a top level plan and because the areas ONLY 5G tower is near the only towered airport in my area i can no longer rely on RADALT for approaches in IMC minimum conditions to that airport. Great job FCC i have poorer cell service and bad IMC conditions now means diverting to another airport and this is New England where the weather changes every 5 minutes and has done since forever enough so over a century ago Mark Twain wrote an essay on New England weather. On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 11:34 AM Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2022, at 09:55, John R. Levine wrote: > > > > Five years ago everyone knew that C band was coming. A reasonable > response would have been for the FAA to work with the FCC to figure out > which altimeters might be affected (old cruddy ones, we now know), and come > up with a plan and schedule to replace them. If the telcos had to pay some > of the costs, they would have grumbled but done it. If the replacement > schedule weren't done by now, they could live with that, too, so long as > there were a clear date when it'd be done. > > The FAA could have easily ordered testing to determine which RA models > were affected and issued an AD prohibiting their use after a certain date. > Once that data was in hand, manufacturers could start working on STCs for > replacements and the airlines could add those STCs to their next annuals, > just like they did for ADS-B. Both would have a decent case for demanding > that the telcos pay for it, and the telcos probably would have paid up. > But that opportunity was wasted. > > > Instead the FAA stuck their fingers in their ears and said no, nothing > can ever change, we can't hear you. Are you surprised the telecom industry > is fed up? > > Exactly. The FAA wants more delays while they do the work they should > have done five years ago, but sorry, that’s not how politics works. The > number of daily 5G users is orders of magnitude larger than the number of > daily airline users, so the FCC *will* win this battle. > > Stephen > PPL ASEL/IR
Re: FCC vs FAA Story
Hi Sabri The flight cancellations are already happening, now if weather threatens to make a RA required approach necessary at an airport covered by a 5G NOTAM the flight is frequently cancelled. Have you not noticed that during inclement weather this year the number of cancellations has vastly increased over previous years Airlines have no desire to deal with the ambulance chasers and if they can avoid the possibility by cancellation of flights they will do so. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:48 AM Sabri Berisha wrote: > [replying to both to reduce the number of mails] > > - On Jun 6, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org wrote: > > >> On Jun 6, 2022, at 09:55, John R. Levine wrote: > > >> Instead the FAA stuck their fingers in their ears and said no, nothing > can ever > >> change, we can't hear you. Are you surprised the telecom industry is > fed up? > > Of course, I'm not surprised. But, remember one thing: this is the > government > messing up. One branch pitted against the other. As an innocent citizen, I > could > not care less: the government effed up. > > > Exactly. The FAA wants more delays while they do the work they should > have done > > five years ago, but sorry, that’s not how politics works. The number of > daily > > 5G users is orders of magnitude larger than the number of daily airline > users, > > so the FCC *will* win this battle. > > The FCC might win a battle, or even a lot of battles. All it takes is one > downed > aircraft with crying families all over CNN, followed by an NTSB > investigation > which only needs to mention 5G interference with RAs, and I will bet you > $50 that > ambulance chasing lawyers will sue everything and everyone connected to > the 5G > debate that even remotely advocated rolling out 5G over concerns for > passenger > safety. > > Or, of course, the FAA will really play dirty politics and ground aircraft > fitted > with certain RAs during a holiday weekend. Watch how quick public and > political > opinions can shift. Remember, most privacy invading laws usually pass with > the > "for the children" and "against the terrorists" arguments. > > Sorry, this aircraft is fitted with an altimeter which may be subject to 5G > interference, thus we have to cancel your flight. You know, for the > children. > > Thanks, > > Sabri >
Re: Anyone with the FAA around, VOR-DME circuit related.
Hi, Luke Definitely NOT with the FAA, but as a pilot I would recommend you contact your local FSDO. I've attached a link for the local FSDO offices they can certainly connect to the appropriate resource since its a safety issue. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:47 PM Luke Guillory via NANOG wrote: > Greetings, > > > > Anyone with the FAA around by chance, needing to speak to someone > regarding a circuit we provide to a specific VOR-DME. We normally deal with > L3Harris though that avenue has gone unanswered. > > > > > > Appreciate any help anyone can provide. > > > > > > > > > > Luke > > >
Re: DNS problems to RoadRunner - tcp vs udp
Not to toss flammables onto the pyre. BUT there is a large difference from what the RFC's allow and common practice. In our shop TCP is blocked to all but authoratative secondaries as TCP is sinply too easy to DoS a DNS server with. We simply don't need a few thousand drones clogging the TCP connection table all trying to do zone transfers ( yes it happened and logs show drones are still trying ) For a long time there has been a effective practice of UDP == resolution requests TCP == zone transfers It would have been better if a separate port had been defined for zone transfers as that would obviate the need for a application layer gateway to allow TCP transfers so that zone transfers can be blocked and resolution requests allowed for now all TCP is blocked. Now just because someone has a bright idea they drag out a 20 y/o RFC and say SEE, SEE you must allow this because the RFC says so all the while ignoring the 20 years of operational discipline that RFC was written when the internet was like the quad at college everyone knew one and other and we were all working towards a common goal of interoperability and open systems , These days the net is more like a seedy waterfront after midnight where criminal gangs are waiting to ambush the unwary and consequently networks need to be operated from that standpoint. At the University networking level it is extremely difficult as we need to maintain a open network as much as possible but protect our infrastructure services so that they have 5 nines of availability back in the day a few small hosts would serve DNS nicely and we did not have people trying to take them down and/or infecting local hosts and attempting DHCP starvation attacks. And no we are not at the 5 nines level but we are working on it. - Scott Randy Bush wrote: If my server responded to TCP queries from anyone other than a secondary server, I would be VERY concerned. you may want to read the specs randy
Re: DNS problems to RoadRunner - tcp vs udp
There is no call for insults on this list - Rather thought this list was about techincal discussions affecting all of us and keeping DNS alive for the majority of our customers certainly qualifies. We/I am more than aware of the DNS mechanisms and WHY there are there trouble is NO DNS server can handle directed TCP attacks even the root servers crumbled under directed botnet activity and we have taken the decision to accept some collateral damage in order to keep services available. We are a well connected university network with multi-gigabit ingress and egress with 10G on Abilene so we try to protect the internet from attacks originating within our borders AND we really feel the full wrath of botnets as we do not have a relatively slow WAN link to buffer the effects. Yes - we are blocking TCP too many problems with drone armies and we started about a year ago when our DNS servers became unresponsive for no apparent reason. Investigation showed TCP flows of hundreds of megabits/sec and connection table overflows from tens of thousands of bots all trying to simultaneously do zone transfers and failing tried active denial systems and shunning with limited effectiveness. We are well aware of the host based mechanisms to control zone information, Trouble is with TCP if you can open the connection you can DoS so we don't allow the connection to be opened and this is enforced at the network level where we can drop at wire speed. Open to better ideas but if you look at the domain in my email address you will see we are a target for hostile activity just so someone can 'make their bones'. Also recall we have a comittment to openess so we would like to make TCP services available but until we have effective DNS DoS mitigation which can work with 10Gb links It's not going to happen. - Scott Jeroen Massar wrote: Scott McGrath wrote: [..] For a long time there has been a effective practice of UDP == resolution requests TCP == zone transfers WRONG. TCP is there as a fallback when the answer of the question is too large. Zone transfer you can limit in your software. If you can't configure your dns servers properly then don't run DNS. Also note that botnets have much more effective ways of taking you out. And sometimes domains actually require TCP because there are too many records for a label eg http://stupid.domain.name/node/651 If you are thus blocking TCP for DNS resolution you suddenly where blocking google and thus for some people "The Internet". Also see: http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/dns-edns0-and-firewalls.html (Which was the second hit for google(EDNS0) after a link to RFC2671) Greets, Jeroen
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Actually ubiquitous power came from a government mandate and funding known as the Rural Electrification Act.The former Bell system left many areas of the country without telephone service and the same act set up the "Rural Telco's" to this day I am served by "Kearsarge Telephone Co" at home which serves a large chunk of Central NH. Ultimately the 'Market' always fails in corner cases and Government in the form of regulation and sometimes funding needs to step in as human nature never changes and greed still dominates in the end not so much that these areas are unprofitable to service it's just that with the same investment more money can be made elsewhere. From a accounting standpoint this is rational behavior from a societal standpoint this behavior is counterproductive. Government is not 'The Answer" as many people feel but it does have a valuable role in balancing financial and societal needs. One of the societal needs today is reasonably priced high speed internet otherwise the US will fall behind in developing next generation network services as low speed DSL simply does not get the job done reasonably priced does not mean $100US for a 384/768 "Business DSL" which is the only thing I can run VPN over.This infrastructure is important today as electricity was in the 20's and 30's Laird Popkin wrote: On Jul 28, 2008, at 9:54 AM, John Levine wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... Oh, but that's different. They were important. Or, to be more specific, people everywhere need power and water and were willing to pay for them, so other people started companies to provide them everywhere. Roads are a little more complicated - the basic roads were there due to demand, but the highways got built because the Army argued that without highways they couldn't move troops and supplies to defend the country in case of an invasion. The same trick got science funded for a while... :-)
Re: [Fwd: Admin: Offtopic Political Threads]
To a degree yes - This issue revolves around the inability to provide end-to-end network services due to artificial constraints in the last mile. At our shop we call it "Troubleshooting the Internet" when one of our customers cannot use a service which we provide and in too many cases it involves the last mile and the only fix is to upgrade to Frac T1 or "Business Class" services. - Scott S. Ryan wrote: Did you all forget this? Original Message Subject: Admin: Offtopic Political Threads Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:29:24 +1200 (NZST) From: Simon Lyall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: nanog@nanog.org List members are reminder that the NANOG List Acceptable Use Policy states that: 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited. The current thread on the "Free Market" and "So why don't US citizens get this?" appears to be solely political and should be moved elsewhere. Simon Lyall NANOG Mailing List Committee The above is a "reminder" regarding desired emails to the NANOG mailing list from the Mailing List Committee (MLC). While it does not constitute a "Formal Warning" it is an official correspondence from the MLC after internal consultation. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you have any feedback
