Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
John Vogel, Disagreeing with you does not make this a less-than-professional discussion. There was nothing in my post that was unprofessional or uncivil; I simply disagree with the use of magnet-mounting equipment onto towers. If discussion on such stuff is unprofessional, then these lists have no purpose. You stated in your earlier post regarding magnets "I don't completely trust them". I don't either, so we are in agreement on the matter :). Call it unprofessional of me, but I tend to think that one should avoid using mounting methods that one doesn't trust when one is dealing with big, heavy chunks of metal and what-all hundreds of feet in the air. As a general side note, any statement about mounting that involved some statement of "I don't completely trust it" would get the same response from me. I don't like the idea of people mounting big heavy objects above my head using methods they themselves have some doubt about. Best practices does not necessarily entail commercially available solutions or degreed engineering solutions. Best practices are simply that--the optimal way(s) of achieving a particular task. "I don't completely trust" methods are a long-ways off from that. My point is not to increase regulation and such--quite the opposite. My point is that using practices that aren't completely trusted will, in the end, lead to regulation. As an industry, the wireless industry will have to learn to regulate itself to a moderate degree or it will be regulated to a heavy degree. There's a lot that goes by everyone on that is not necessarily as well done as it could be--which is understandable--business may require concessions to some degree. Nevertheless, better practices should be used in places that are highly visible or potentially impact the public community. Does it need to involve a degreed engineer? Of course not. But, considering that even you had your doubts, 200 feet above everyone in plain sight of an entire town is a heck-of a place for a "we'll see" approach which was the feeling I got from your original postings. I don't think that engineering needs to take into accounts stupid misuse (ie antennas being used as footholds). Still, I don't see how a mounting solution that you were almost surprised that there hadn't been slippage on a year later is a good thing. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies ps. I'm not against magnets in general. Magnets on my fridge? Guilty as charged :) Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts
Not to ruffle any feathers and not directed at anyone, but lack of problems on a single install does not always coincide with proper approaches on this sort of thing. Best practices are just that--the best approach(es) to doing technical work--there are also bad practices, not so good practices, it may work practices, it should hold practices, and we'll deal with that later practices. They often will get the job done, but, just so that we're all clear on this, none of the later category, no matter how many one-off implementations are functional to some degree or another, will ever be "best practices". Personally, if I was in your town or especially on any sort of a planning board or whatever, I'd be fairly nervous about the idea of big heavy objects being held up by magnets, especially when (seemingly) it is being done by people who don't necessarily have a lot of experience with calculating load bearing stuff with magnets. The fact that you hold up anecdotal evidence as a basis for its validity rather than "it's engineered to withstand 100Mph winds or whatever pretty much illustrates my point--this is just a bad idea. Just keep in mind that one falling antenna that kills one person is enough to bring out major liability lawsuits that you will not be covered against, not to mention bringing some fairly major legislative regulation and licensing requirements for mounting affecting the whole industry. If I knew that antennas in my area were be magnet-mounted by amateurs, I would be personally leading the charge for some regulation on this. Ok, sorry for any offense. I'm not trying to flame anyone, but this is just not a good idea. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 7/12/07, Ray & Jean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Carl We used one from Tessco that has a collar that bolts around the vent on top of tank and adjustable legs for leveling.It has been up there 4 years with no problems.It was easy to install approx 1hour. Ray Hill - Original Message - From: "J. Vogel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Water Tower Mounts > Carl Shivers wrote: >> We are going to be mounting Panel Sector antennas to 2 Water Towers. One >> tower is ideal with a rail that has been designed for pipe mounting. The >> other is not so kind. It simply has a ladder up the side and over the >> top, >> no catwalk. We were thinking about using one of those 170 lbs. Water >> Tower >> mounts. This means we either have to get a welder up there to weld the >> plates or come up with an industrial epoxy solution. > I have successfully used magnets on a couple of towers for 2 years now... > > I don't completely trust them, so I also run a safety cable around the > mast > and anchor it to a solid projection on the tower so that if the magnets > did > turn loose, the mast wouldn't hit the ground, but in two years, and > through > several thunderstorms and pretty good winds, the magnets haven't shifted > a bit that I can see. > > -- > > John Vogel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.vogent.net 620-754-3907 > Vogel Enterprises, LLC > Information Services Provider serving S.E. Kansas > > > Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know > your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The > current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to > know your thoughts. > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 > 5:44 PM > > Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertise
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Sorry for the late reply on this; sometimes life takes presedence :) Doug, you definitely hit a number of things on the head, there. There is a _definite_ need for some much more...shall we say, mature network platforms in the wireless industry, and then for that equipment to be available at affordable prices. Still, I don't necessarily agree with you (Doug) on the pricing. Good stuff like you're describing will never be cheap simply because there aren't enough units produced and sold to make it profitable at lower prices. Is it expensive? Yes. Still, do keep in mind that multi-tenant solutions in the non-wireless world are considerably considerably much more expensive that what you mentioned, not necessarily in terms of gear but definitely in terms of infrastructure (fiber or whatever). This is, btw, done again and again at very lucrative profit margins in aggregate...it would be worth your while to study your competition in the industry and see how they make money :). I wouldn't really expect for the price of such equipment to fall considerably, btw, simply because a large portion of the independent market often is price-conscious to a fault, meaning that too often, a lot of the providers out there deploy less-than ideal systems simply to save a few dollars. As a little "inside/outside" observation about the independent provider industry, the guys who tend to do better are the guys who, at least when it counts, will pay major money to get the right platform in place, and then sell the hell out of that platform. In a weird sort of way, I sometimes wonder if the ebay / jerry-rig approach that often goes on (which, is often quite technically sound) almost hurts simply because it allows service providers too often to deploy platforms that don't really have a critical mass. Sometime, if you're up for either some humor or hurting (depending on where you're standing), talk to Peter (rad-info Peter) about cost and pricing and profit in the industry. He's got a lot of good insight on the busness operations side of service providers about all the stupid ways that independents often do very bad calculations in their business planning (for example, forget to figure that it costs you money to bill and invoice). The same thing goes into the technical platforms as well. A lot of you guys tend to fixate on the cost of the routers or APs or whatever (ie central networking equipment). If you do a "total cost of ownership" to your platforms, it often becomes clearer why doubling the cost of your router doesn't really raise your costs all that much and often provides much better value. Anyway, back to my point, whatever that was :). Definitely more mature platforms will have to come in the wireless industry. As a general observation, the biggest difference between the wireline service provider gear and the wireless industry stuff is 1. bandwidth to some degree 2. lack of mature provisioning systems and mechanisms. The wireless industry is still very focused on the connection rather than a service. (for those who haven't really dealt with the other) Provisioning by the service means that you provision services on your platform. Your platform tracks usage, capacity, and so forth, and gives you the ability to "provision" a service that has some guarantee of bandwidth on an end-to-end basis. For the most part, the wireless industry still operates a little too heavily as just a series of dumb "pipes" (wireles or not) without no non-overly-cumbersome methods of provisioning across the infrastructure including various classes of services across the infrasrtucture as well. As a result, WISPs networks tend to be an entirely "best effort" approach end to end. Anyway, just some thoughts and ramblings. Back to other stuff for now... -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/18/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For Last Mile- > FreeSpace Optics can be had now up to 1/2 mile for as low as $5K. GB > manufacturers are going to realize soon, the day of the huge profit > margin will be a thing of the past. The competition is here on all fronts. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband Yep, I just did a 100meg FSO link and it was around $5k for the link. I wuld have preffered to do fiber and I'm sure it would have been not much more, but the beaurocracy to get where I needed to go was slow moving. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
Not even close. The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars ($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close off line sharing requirements. Total revenue for "other providers of local service" nationwide (not just Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year. Peter, you may have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual Telecommunications revenue report. Considering this includes a lot of stuff that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify Verizon and AT&T's move to fiber. I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance. But, the reality is that it is simply an annoyance. Most of the players who really "count" in terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s. 5Mb/s was great technology in 1998. We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher theoretical capacity). The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects. The cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days (well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going after the business market. The telcos are on an old copper network which simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is 25Mb/s down, 5 up +-). The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle much data. The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit "broadcast" rather than point to point) for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business side. Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that way. Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the technical basis to compete. Plain and simple. The market is evolving. Sure, telcos don't like line sharing. However, CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the least of the ILECs worries these days. They are rolling out fiber because the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on that level. Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :). My comments above are mainly centered around the urban markets. You could reasonably make the argument that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from AT&T side, but not too far off). Rural markets will remain on copper for a _long_ time. If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in. Verizon is rolling out FTTH across its market, sure. Don't forget that Verizon also spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in rural areas). Many of these areas are still running copper between central offices, if that is any indication. In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter "why" the market is moving away from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural). Still, I think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you think that the ILECs are doing a multi-billion dollar fiber rollout simply to get rid of them... even if copper stayed around, the CLECs relying on it would obselete themselves about as quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/15/07, Peter R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: correct George Rogato wrote: > Isn't the reason they are replacing some of their copper with fiber is > because they then do not have to allow competition to ride their wires? > Old wires old rules, new fiber new rules? > > George > > Peter R. wrote: > >> The AT&T (originally SBC) VDSL plan requires copper to the home. >> Fiber to the neighborhood. >> >> In VZ region, they are pulling out copper as fast as they can & >> replacing it with fiber. (FiOS is FTTH not FTTN). >> VZ even clips the copper when they install your FiOS. >> And what VZ isn't replacing, thieves are stealing, since copper is >> easy to sell. >> >> VZ's union is even claiming that VZ is not maintaining the copper >> plant in some areas. >> >> If you watch the FCC network notifications, there is more copper >> replacement being done this ye
Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant
AT&T is betting on copper for the next 5-10 years for the next 5-10 years. I think that, alone, about disbunks this article. -Clint On 6/15/07, Peter R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Last month, Tom Evslin, the co-founder of Internet service provider AT&T Worldnet and voice-over-IP wholesaler ITXC, created quite a stir by making the bold prediction that the twisted copper pair to the home won't exist in 2013. "By 2012 [there will be] no more reason to use our landlines--so we won't," Evslin wrote in his blog. "I don't think the copper plant will last past 2012. The problem is the cost of maintaining and operating it when it has very few subscribers. Obviously [it's] a huge problem for AT&T and Verizon. And an important social issue as well." Those comments provoked quite a reaction from readers, most of which were along the lines of, "Wha-huh?" Most people were eager to bet against Evslin's prediction. At the same time, his words echoed in my mind as I read recent complaints from the Communications Workers of America and the West Virginia Public Service Commission that Verizon Communications is neglecting its copper plant as it focuses on fiber-to-the-home deployment. The CWA told Virginia regulators that Verizon is foregoing preventative maintenance on much of the state's copper lines and ordering "Band-Aid repairs" for major problems. Verizon refutes that charge that copper has, in essence, become its redheaded stepchild. But those complaints highlight the way that copper becomes increasingly onerous for Verizon as its fiber network grows. Copper lines will require more care than passive optical networks and yield less revenue. In some cases, it might behoove Verizon for that copper to fail sooner rather than later to accelerate fiber migration. So I can't help but wonder if Verizon would bet against Evslin. Or on him. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Matt, I'm not a WISP (I do network design, deployment, and consulting for service providers), but, seeing as how none of the WISPs are answering, I'll give it a shot as to percieved advantages of MT or StarOS. 1. I don't think the FCC certification is a huge issue. This is largely because any of the certification stuff needs to be done once, and can then be replicated. Regardless of how you look at it, the initial cost of deploying a platform (any platform) is quite expensive especially once you start factoring in all of the things that are usually ignored by smaller service providers (ie their own time for R&D). This is true whether you are doing Cisco, Moto, Alvarion, Trango, etc...--you have to (should!) do bench testing, draw up network diagrams, figure out all the specifics to getting install processes and so forth down pat), figure out how you are going to manage hundreds or thousands of these things, and so forth. The effort for certification is not a huge deal, then, since you can amoratize out the time across all of your systems, just like you're already doing for all the other aspects of your network. Is it an increased cost? Sure...but, in the end, not that big of one on a per-unit basis, especially since the whole concept of a business is to scale big (right?). That said, the irony is that the guys that tend to run MT or StarOS are often the small providers where there simply isn't the return of scale that makes this even vaguely a good idea. 2. The main advantage is (theoretically) the ability to have a single platform across the entire infrastructure. I say theoretically because there are areas where most providers diverge from this because they don't feel that it really "fits". Still, the idea of having a unified platform across the infrastructure can potentially be very powerful and very good. Still, I tend to find the MT management app kinda weak in this regard; it hasn't (IMHO) sufficiently evolved from a "mass managment app" to a "platform management app". Still, while these are criticisms, if MT can cover a sufficiently large portion of your infrastructure needs, then having a single (or 2 or 3) platforms can really reduce operational costs considerably. Conceptually, the idea of "upgrade the hardware, not the platform" is great. 3. Some degree of freedom. This is somewhat seperate from #2, but along the same lines. I can think of several instances of larger service providers being left with millions of dollars of infrastructure with no support and no future because a particular product line no longer fit into their vendors roadmap. Divorcing the hardware from the software makes this less of a possibility, although does not totally negate the possibility, especially given that most of the hardware vendors that MT stuff typically ends up running on (ie the embedded PC market) are often, well, not the most financially stable operations. I hope this helps. Just for the record, while I do think MT can be a good choice for some people, I would make the observation that there are providers out there who could have better allocated their resources elsewhere--most of the advantages don't really work until there is some degree of scale, but at that point there are other considerations that often take MT out of consideration. Thanks, Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/10/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: George Rogato wrote: > Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or > Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well. > > And nobody needs to explain why. > > I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different vendors' radios. We first started with Canopy on a recommendation and over time various operators (mostly WISPA members) introduced us to other vendors' radios. Every time we learned about a new vendor from the experiences of others. I respect the experience of my peers and find it quite useful in vendor selection. Why everyone is so defensive about MT I don't know. I personally don't care what equipment anyone uses. I am just curious why people use it in case it would be useful for us. But, no one seems willing to answer that. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] strange connectivity issues
Often, when you have issues like this, a good practice is to reset TCP/IP and Winsock. This can especially be true on machines that have been mucked up with Norton Internet (in)Security, which has an annoying habit of leaving its firewall settings intact after uninstallation on at least some versions. This fixes a lot of things at once and so is often a good quick fix. The instructions below walk through the process... Also, check out netstat (open command prompt, do netstat -ano (the n disables DNS and the o shows the PID). This can give you an idea as to what sort of connections the computer is making and attempting to make. It also often reveals viruses, as anything that is trying to spam out or spread itself out through the network will (generally) show up in here (although, viruses sometimes do hide themselves). -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies. TCP/IP and Winsock Reset Reset the Winsock and TCP/IP stack... Reset TCP/IP Command usage netsh int ip reset [log_file_name] To run the command successfully, you must specify a file name for the log where actions that are taken by netsh will be recorded. For example, at a command prompt, type either of the samples that are listed in the "Command samples" section. The TCP/IP stack will then be reset on a system, and the actions that were taken will be recorded in the log file, Resetlog.txt. The first sample creates the log file in the current directory, while the second sample creates a path where the log will reside. In either case, where the specified log file already exists, the new log will be appended to the end of the existing file. Command samples netsh int ip reset resetlog.txt netsh int ip reset c:\resetlog.txt Reset Winsock 1. Click Start, and then click Run. 2. In the Open box, type regedit, and then click OK. 3. Locate the following registry subkeys: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Winsock HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Winsock2 4. Right-click each key, and then click Delete. 5. Click Yes to confirm the deletion. Note Restart the computer after you delete the Winsock keys. This action creates new shell entries for those two registry subkeys. If you do not restart the computer after you delete the Winsock keys, the next step does not work correctly. When you restart the computer, you may see dialog boxes that mention TCP/IP problems and various event log messages that relate to services that you have installed. Ignore these messages. To reinstall TCP/IP, follow these steps: 1. Right-click the network connection, and then click Properties. 2. Click Install, click Protocol, and then click Add. 3. Click Have Disk 4. Type C:\Windows\inf, and then click OK. 5. In the list of available protocols, click Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), and then click OK. 6. Restart the computer. - On 5/25/07, Chadd Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marlon, Sound like you covered all your bases here but here is my .02 worth. I have had issues like this in the past and it has always been related to one of three things. 1. If it is a new hookup from dialup or SAT usually it is some sort of a proxy issue, either proxy is enabled in internet explorer settings or there is a third party app installed for the dialup/sat. I had to reformat a PC one time because I couldn't get a clean uninstall of Directway's proxy software. 2. Mcaffee or Norton Virus/internet security is installed tyring to make sure that it stays installed on the PC and kept up to date. I have seen both programs totally hose a PC with the same issues you are describing. One of the first things I do on a PC with either of these to programs is uninstall it "if it will let you" and install AVG Antivirus and AVG anitspyware or MS defender. 3. There is a virus and or spyware on the PC. Thanks, Chadd > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:35 PM > To: wireless@wispa.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [WISPA] strange connectivity issues > > > I've had some very strange things happen of late. > > Wed. I hooked up a new customer. Couldn't get their system to > work but my > laptop did. I told them to call MacAfee and see if they could figure out > what was blocking things. They ended up taking the computer to a > friend's > house, hooking it up to a dsl connection via a router and it worked just > fine. Why would it not work via static ip but would via dhcp? > > Yesterday I did a Vista setup. It would connect to the wireless > router just > fine but would not get to the internet. I finally went into IE > options and > set all of them back to the defaults. What BS would have been in IE that > would have told it to not use the established netwo
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it?
I definitely would recommend learning it or at least getting familiar with it. There is not enough on it yet to transition your entire network over to it, but, it is definitely doable for transit within your network and replacement for private IPs for your customers. Not that any of these are marketable--yet. However, three or four years down the line, I think that you'll start seeing this as creeping into transit connections as well as requested by some business customers; for the latter, being able to say "yeah, we've been doing that for 4 years" instead of "I think I can learn that by the time your circuit is provisioned" is a good thing :) David, would you mind contacting me off-list (or on) with the name/model of the router that doesn't support IPv6? I work as a consultant for a company that fits the description, so I'm kinda curious--most of the stuff out there can support IPv6 (well, in the "core router" category). As mentioned, there are a number of "free" "tunnel" connections; these are useful for playing, although keep in mind that you don't own the space or the connection--don't deploy anything serious on it. (Although, as a side note, usually the "small chunk of addresses", at least through HE.net, is 18,446,774,073,709,551,616 IP addresses (/64). ie 1.84x10^19 !) You can also get a block for free from ARIN if you pay your dues regularly; I believe that renewal is also free if you have an IPV4 block through them. BTW, if you don't have your own ARIN block, you definitely should strongly consider getting one. $2000-4000 / year is a small price to pay for having provider independent IP space and the freedom to switch carriers at will without having to worry about transitioning. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 5/25/07, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike Hammett wrote: > There is a separate IPv6 Internet. You need to buy your IPv6 service > from a different provider that support it. If you can find one :( There's a few places (Hurricane Electric, SixXS, OCCAID) that are more or less involved in IPv6 stuff, but they generally only work by way of tunneling. There's also the issue of network gear that supports it. In the next few days, I'm deploying a brand new core router that we just paid about three large for (brand name intentionally left blank, but it's a big enough company that you've probably heard of 'em). As near as I can tell, it doesn't support IPv6 in any form or fashion. > Once I get settled and can afford the separate IPv6 feed without an > immediate return, I'll be getting it. Everything I have is Mikrotik and > they should have IPv6 implemented at some point. For small-scale experiments and such, this should be nearly (or totally) free. I've had an IPv6 tunnel on my desktop for a couple years now. Never used it for anything besides looking at the dancing turtle, really, but it's there. If you don't feel like getting a direct IPv6 allocation from ARIN (assuming you already get direct IPv4 allocations from them), SixXS can set you up with a small chunk of addresses, more than enough to play around with, and unless it's changed very recently they'll do this for free. As an aside: http://www.ipv6experiment.com/ <-- THIS is the way to promote IPv6 ;) David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it?
IPv6 is pretty much free to run on a play level. In the next couple of months, I'm planning on having some equipment up on IPv6, and I will be happy to offer tunneling services at a near free cost (just a token amount to avoid dealing with people who aren't really interested) to anyone who wants to play around with it. The basic idea is that you will be able to take a router (or a server) capable of IPv6, give it a normal IPv4 address on your network, and tunnel in (basically using the same concept as a VPN, sort of). There are also free services out there as well, albeit with nominal support. From a few discussions I've had on this, it is good to know sooner rather than later. While widespread adoption is a few years away, there are carriers who will be transitioning to IPv6 on the transit level before that point. It doesn't affect your ability to offer IPv4 services through them, but, your interconnect will be IPv6, so on and so forth. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 5/25/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Windows XP supports IPv6. There is a separate IPv6 Internet. You need to buy your IPv6 service from a different provider that support it. Once I get settled and can afford the separate IPv6 feed without an immediate return, I'll be getting it. Everything I have is Mikrotik and they should have IPv6 implemented at some point. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Mike Bushard, Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:59 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it? >I really dread IPv6.so much more complicated. > > I probably would run it, but from my understanding there is a ton of > equipment on the internet backbone that won't route it. Not to mention how > many SOHO routers and PC's are ready for it? Will your CPE support it? > > And the list goes on, I foresee a mad rush for upgrades and implementation > the day v4 space is gone, and not a second before. > > Mike Bushard, Jr > Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC > 320-256-WISP (9477) > 320-256-9478 Fax > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ryan Langseth > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 10:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] IPv6 - anyone using it? > > With the recent announcement by ARIN to start pushing IPv6 uptake, > and the run out date of v4 is as soon as 2010, I was wondering is > anyone are here using v6 in some form or planning the switchover? > > Since it is much more than renumbering customers, the needed time for > deploying it will be much longer, is your infrastructure ready for it? > > http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070521.html > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070521-arin-its-time-to- > migrate-to-ipv6.html > > Have a great evening, > > Ryan > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Promotion of services on-list
I'll throw in my two cents here. Personally, I think this is a case of much ado about nothing. To the extent possible, communities work best when they can sort out the issues organically, and I tend to think that this is a self-correcting problem (if there is a problem here). Just making it known that blatant self-promotion by non-Vendor members is bad taste means that self-promotion is done at one's own risk--sure, I may let people know I offer a service, but I also may alienate all of my potential customers. Still, I don't think that it works quite well to have--even on a social level--an absolute ban on any sort of self promotion. There are a number of companies on the list who, if I read them correctly, are WISPs who also dabble in some member to member services. If a topic of discussion comes up that coincides with their member to member offerings (in this case, Barracuda Spam Filtering), it is a little unfair to expect them to offer their expertise (which, they hopefully have in abundance, since it is their specialty) without mentioning "hey, btw, I offer this service". So, a strict reading of a Vendor-only self promotion policy would force them to choose between either promoting their competition or not providing their expertise. So, I personally think that signatures should be open and mentioning in response to a post that you offer services should be allowed. Does that sabatoge the value of Vendor memberships? Not in my mind--you still couldn't post an "Advertisement," it has to be a response. Most importantly, you aren't a vendor--self-promote at your own peril. Responses to posts stating "buy my service" does and will alienate your potential customer base, a risk vendors not shared by vendors. Social pressure works quite well, and is, in the end, more effective and easier on everyone than a heavy handed approach to moderation. Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] online doc sharing
And who is the NDA with? On 5/16/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What part of the CALEA stuff requires an NDA? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > Law enforcement stuff. > > Google hasn't signed the needed NDA so we can't host the docs there. > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since > 1999! > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > - Original Message - From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:41 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] online doc sharing > > >> Just out of curiousity, what privacy requirements are you trying to meet >> that aren't met by Google Docs? >> >> Thanks, >> Clint Ricker >> Kentnis Technologies >> >> On 5/16/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> The calea committee needs a way to share word docs online. We need >>> to be >>> able to edit them etc. online so that our edits don't overlap or get >>> left >>> off. >>> >>> We'd been using google docs but due to some new privacy requirements >>> we're >>> unable to do that now. We have to have the same functionality on >>> one of >>> our >>> servers. Anyone know how to get one of the machines set up this way? >>> >>> The doc needs to be stored on a secure password protected site. >>> >>> thanks! >>> Marlon >>> (509) 982-2181 >>> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >>> 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since >>> 1999! >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >>> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] online doc sharing
Just out of curiousity, what privacy requirements are you trying to meet that aren't met by Google Docs? Thanks, Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 5/16/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, The calea committee needs a way to share word docs online. We need to be able to edit them etc. online so that our edits don't overlap or get left off. We'd been using google docs but due to some new privacy requirements we're unable to do that now. We have to have the same functionality on one of our servers. Anyone know how to get one of the machines set up this way? The doc needs to be stored on a secure password protected site. thanks! Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23
You also might be on the wrong end of CALEA if a TTP does sign off on it. Use of a TTP does not provide any legal cover, btw--in the end, the service provider, not the TTP, is responsible--read the official statements and legalese on the matter. Still, for all the scare tactics getting thrown around, CALEA really isn't that big of a deal (unless you are doing VoIP, where the near-real time requirements require a bit of planning). Yes, sniffing and packaging does meet CALEA specs. Need a MD5 hash? Then generate one... In general, do not expect relatively simple layer 2/3 network equipment to provide complex application layer-style support for various networking tasks that can and, indeed should, be performed elsewhere on the network :) CALEA capable? Sure, if it does Ethernet (or, indeed, any layer two or layer three protocol), then it is CALEA capable. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 4/24/07, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But does that meet CALEA specs? Not really, since it does not do the MD5 hash and such. At least that is what I get from reading about CALEA. Basically if a TTP doesn't sign off on it you be at the wrong end of a investigation when the lawyers start saying it was not captured correctly. You should talk to your lawyer about it and not take my opinion of it as anything but just what it is, stinky just like every ones. On 4/23/07, Smith, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You're reading too much into it. > > They're right. The ability is there to mirror every packet to/from a IP > address onto disk. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of ralph > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:23 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23 > > It is lame because it is a feature that the user community needs and > wants, > and the vendor is passing the buck. > > Not surprising, concerning their actions on FCC certification of other > products. > > Mikrotik makes dandy router software and I support them on that. > > We do use the PC version in some POPs > > > > Open CALEA is just not yet ready for prime time, however the compliance > date > loometh soon. > > > > The CALEA tap/probe should be something that can be done in the router > (I > think that's how Cisco implemented it). > > Because Imagestream will have it ready May 1st, we went with their box > just > to have something that works now has been tested with the FBI. > > I'd just like to feel that the company who many of us support heavily > should > listen to and support its customers better. > > > > I've seen your posts and am well aware that one can capture all traffic > via > mirror port and hand the whole shebang over to the LEA, or we can spend > hours wading through it and massaging data (which I think might cause it > to > be tainted). We've probably all captured users' traffic before and > probably > all know how to run Ethereal. > > > > I'd just like to see an accepted method that doesn't take an abundance > of > time to institute and maintain. > > > > I'm curious- do you have a solution, working now, that uses the hardware > you > mention and OpenCALEA to deliver a product that will be accepted by law > enforcement, or are you just talking concepts? > > > > > > > > > _ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:55 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23 > > > > Why is that lame? I don't see where this is Mikrotik's problem or issue. > > I'm going to keep saying this over and over and over (started over a > year > ago). Use a smart ethernet switch and mirror your main internet > connection > to a box that can capture the traffic. Then use something like openCalea > (www.opencalea.org). Even if you have to buy a switch, a box to run the > software, etc. you are less than $500 total. If you have multiple NOC's, > $500 per location is cheap. > > Travis > Microserv > > ralph wrote: > > I asked: > > > > I have 3 of your licensed routers (level 4) When do you plan to > release a version of RouterOS that is CALEA compliant? > > Thank You > > > > > They Replied: > > Hello, > > It already is, you simply have to enable sniffer of all traffic, and > store > the raw data on a server that captures it. You can also use smart > switches > that can mirror ports to a capturing server. See discussions on our > for
Re: [WISPA] How many of you actually use your own service?
There are definitely good benifits from using your own service. Nevertheless, there are also benifits from using the competition--you learn how they do things. This can be especially good with the big players who are quite good at putting together install kits that are economical, scale well, and are quite easy for the customer (reduces load on tech support). A lot of their stuff is quite slick--it's worth looking it from time to time. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 4/9/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I use my wireless and telco dsl. I have some customers on ap's that belong to friendly competitors. I have my own email and a yahoo account. If at all possible, I'll always have access to SOMETHING. When I can swing the budget I'll also get a sat. connection and mount it on a trailer. I'll make that a mobile system that will allow me to set up a hotspot anywhere. marlon - Original Message - From: "Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:47 AM Subject: [WISPA] How many of you actually use your own service? >I always tell my clients that I use my own service and that I will > usually know before they do that things are slow or not working > because my family will call me MUCH faster than any client. > > This builds trust with my clients. > > ... > > > Recently I was emailed by another WISP in my area and I noticed the > CEO was NOT using his own serviceStrange > > So with all this being said, I was wondering... how many of you use your > own service? > > ryan > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Why Customers leave
Interesting thought. Along those lines, try calling up past customers and asking them--you may not like the feedback, but, it should be useful. In any case, they'll likely have a better idea why they left than we will :) -Clint On 3/31/07, Peter R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tom and Jack, The 68% leaving from Indifference means that you aren't telling them how good you are. So when the new guy shows up, he has no idea of the record of reliability. One of the great things about selling Managed Router or Firewall or IDS service to businesses is that you can send them a report weekly or daily. This tells them regularly who you are, what you do, and how well you are doing it. It is advertising AND a report card. Many ISPs tell me that people leave - and these people never had a problem for the x number of years that they were clients. You didn't tell them. Out of sight is out of mind. Regards, Peter Jack Unger wrote: > Tom DeReggi wrote: > >>* 68% perceived indifference by a representative of your firm >> >> I just don't believe that. Are most businesses that stupid to allow > > > > That may be what Peter is trying to get us to think about and/or address. > > It takes only one bad customer experience which can easily be provided > by one employee who either: > > 1. Lacks customer skills, or > 2. Who is having a bad day, or > 3. Who has just been shit upon by his or her manager > > to "sour" a customer on a whole company. > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Fwd: [OpenCALEA] release v0.5
FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: Manish Karir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mar 30, 2007 4:17 PM Subject: [OpenCALEA] release v0.5 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] All, I have just place a tar.gz for release v0.5 of the opencalea software. We wanted to get this out so that more people can start testing things out and reporting bugs back. The main features added are: - batch-start : the ability to start simultaneous tap at multiple locations - batch-stop : the ability to stop these taps at multiple sites - lots of code cleanups and fixes thanks to Jesse Norell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> everyone should upgrade to this release from the 0.4 release. comments/corrections/patches are welcome. Experiences from people trying to run this are also welcome on the list. Early next week I will try to outline the new features we want to target for the 0.6 release. thanks manish -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA Test
Again with the CALEA. The following is the contact if you want to "test" / verify that your CALEA implimentation works. -- Mr. John Cutright (Manager CIU Test Team) at 703-632-6484 or at [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Thanks, -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] CALEA compliance
I've posted a lot on CALEA here, and some of you are likely tired of hearing from me, if you haven't already filtered :) Just a general point from reading: Some of you are going to / have already gone with TTPs. Just be careful. Having read some of their posts over in the AskCALEA forums, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on. They are NOT doing anything magical or difficult--it is basic networking concepts wrapped up in a bunch of legalese. That is not to discourage going that route. For many shops out there, especially those who don't have a strong networking background (which is fine!), it is the most "economically advantageous route" to CALEA compliance. However, be careful. The law CLEARLY states that the service provider, NOT the TTP, bears the legal responsibility and liability for CALEA compliance, even if the service provider engages with a TTP. In other words, if you hire a TTP, and pay them $20,000 or $50,000 or whatever, and, come six months later and you get supenoed, and the TTP can't provide the information, YOU are still liable. Be careful, and make sure that any contracts you sign pass liability and then some onto the TTP. Make them insure their product in the contract. While there are valid TTPs out there (the majority, even), I'm pretty certain from reading comments that there are likely to be a couple of frauds out there looking for the easy money with no intention of actually providing services. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA
I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt--it is based on an amateur reading on legal documents. To get to my actual point, just skip to the end of my post, the rest is just background (supporting information). None of the legal framework around CALEA specifies any particular mechanisms for CALEA implimentation, only what defines CALEA compliance. The mechanisms were officially designated as "up to the industry". The actual wording of the law is that the government is not authorized to require "any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider ..." and is not authorized "to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider ...". CALEA compliance consists of, upon receipt of legal notification under CALEA, providing the following (in loose term): 1. Contents of data flow--ie the traffic being passed by the customer 2. Control data--ie radius/AAA information. When the user logged on, logged off, etc... For VoIP, this is basically a CDR 3. Deliver the information. This is the part about standards. The T1.IAS standard defines a "common" standard for delivering the information; this, according to the law, can't be the only acceptable means of information. Nevertheless, it does provide a level of safety in that, if you use other forms of packaging (which is allowed under the law!), then you do have some burden of proof, if questioned, that you did comply with the law. To get to the actual point, it doesn't matter as long as the information can be supplied. However, there are three caveats with relying on upstream providers 1. Ultimately, you still can be held responsible. This is just a guess, but is logical given that a. downstream providers can be supenoed as necessary and b. Even if you pay for a TTP and they, in the moment of crisis, can't provide the information, you are still liable. 2. Multiple upstream providers make this difficult. That doesn't apply to everyone, but just keep that in mind. 3. An upstream provider most likely doesn't have access to your control information. You still have to provide this in some fashion or another. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis.com On 3/30/07, John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I doubt that is the case. If the upstream is inline and can provide the data flow from a point of aggregation (upstream network connection) then the TTP hardware connected upstream should be compliant. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > A ttp is compliant. But it's entirely possible (probably likely) that > the ttp's hardware will have to be at the wisp's local. Not at the > upstream. > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since > 1999! > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:25 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA > > >> Butch Evans wrote: >> >>> >>> This is not acceptable. ALL facilities based service providers are >>> required to be compliant. >> >> How is using a 3rd party not compliant? I seem to recall the FCC >> specifically allows for 3rd parties to provide your compliance. >> >> -Matt >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] hotspot
Certification wouldn't matter on this; he's not looking to use any wireless functions on the product. It's a straight Ethernet based solution. DD-WRT may be controversial as a wireless solution, but it makes a pretty good router for a $50 device (IPTables, OSPF/BGP/RIP, PPTP VPN, IPSec VPN, Radius support, more). Wireless is only one portion of DD-WRT and can be turned off. There are also some commercial ones that keep the nice embeded aspects for a few hundred. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/29/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Then why doesn't Mikrotik GET their boards FCC certified? I know it's cheap but if 1000 of us WISPs spend $5k each to certify it, vs MT spending $5k once and charging an extra 5 bucks, I'd rather do that. Annoying to say the least. - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] hotspot > You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of > them. > > You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license. > > You can use a PC running Chillispot. > > Then, connect their existing Linksys APs. > > That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already certified > access points. > > Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are > Part 15 certified in that configuration). > > Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT > developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the unit > was certified using allows it to still maintain certification. You'll > probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware > allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved. > > Ralph > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM > To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com > Subject: [WISPA] hotspot > > Hi, > > We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some > type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 > or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. > Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of > people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, > businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very > basic authentication system (username / password). > > Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act > more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? > > thanks, > > Travis > Microserv > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 3/28/2007 > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] hotspot
Your cheapest option is running DD-WRT (http://dd-wrt.com) and Chillispot (http://www.chillispot.org/). m0n0wall also does captive portal for cheap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_portal has a good list of captive portals I'm not sure whether it works in a bridging scenario, though; that would be ideal. Anyone tried taking routing out of the picture with DD-WRT and doing chillispot with simple bridging/switching? Thanks, -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6 or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch. Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot, businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very basic authentication system (username / password). Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play? thanks, Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
I agree with almost everything you said... except the "triple play" revenue... Qwest is doing a triple play system (Qwest DSL, Qwest VoIP and DirecTV) for $99 per month with $0 install. Their introductory price is $99 per month, but they are most likely counting on people bumping up a tier in DSL service and TV packages... Also, I don't have a problem with 30-50 year ROI for fiber... but ClearWire is wireless... all the equipment will have to swapped out in 5 years. True enough, and that makes wireless somewhat an oddball. In this case, there is some analogy to their use of licensed spectrum, which is analogous to an extent to a physical medium. Does anyone know off the top of their head what platform they are using? I know Intel is partnering with them, but I've not followed them very closely. I'm kinda curious what their technology cycle will be -Clint Travis Microserv Clint Ricker wrote: > Just some general thoughts on large corporations, financing, and > business. While Peter's analysis about silos and funding sources is > right on, I'm going to skirt that discussion because it isn't a > meaningful discussion on a superficial level. > > How do they make money? (Well, if they do make money--some don't). > > 1. Long term investments: While, in some respects the thirty year > cycle doesn't work for Internet, in other respects it does, especially > when you are talking transport. True, the equipment may need to > change--but, fiber invested in now will be monetizable for the next 50 > years. > > While I don't think that 10-20 year ROI is practical (or smart) for > most smaller companies, many smaller players do hamstring themselves > by only looking at models that can be profitable in 3-6 months. > Financing may be needed, but it is often worth it. A good example to > this is CLECs that took the easy money for several years and never > made any long-term investments (I'm sure Peter can supply some details > about the networks that were never built, despite billions of dollars > that came and went). > > 2. Long term loans: I'm seperating this out, but it is tied into the > long term investments. Sure, fiber layed today may take 5 years to > pay for itself. But, if it is paid for out of a 15 year loan, it can > be "profitable" from day one. > > 3. Better monetization: (More upsells). Take a look at your phone, > cable, and cell bills, and think about how much of that is upsold from > "basic" service. Basic cable costs $20; yet most people have packages > costs $50 or more. Basic cell phone service is $35-45, but many pay > closer to $100+. In other words, they get 2x-3x the revenue for > additional services that don't really cost them anything. > > A good example of this is Verizon's FiOS buildout, which I gather > Peter is quite sceptical of. $23 billion dollars by 2010; but only > 200,000 customers by the end of 2006. On the surface, this does seem > to be a little unprofitable for the next few years, but I'm not so > sure... > > A good triple play customer can net a company an average of $125-$150 > per month in revenue. This means, over the course of 10 years, that > customer is worth $15,000! Those 200,000 customers, by 2015, will > have paid Verizon a total of $3 billion dollars; given the reach of > Verizon's buildout; those 200,000 customers are just a drop in the > bucket. Given that Verizon can get long term loans on these projects; > it can be "profitable" pretty early on. It may blow up in their face, > given competition--but, I actually think they are in good shape > considering how versitile fiber is; their network expansion will serve > them for decades to come with only hardware upgrades necessary to > squeeze more out of the fiber. > > Anyway, I digress :). I just know the Verizon numbers a little > better, so it makes a clearer example. But, given that Clearwire is > hoping to squeeze more than $50 ARPU from this ($600 per year) > (combined voip/data), will eventually have more or less nationwide > service with the ability to truly take on cellular networks in a big > way, and so forth, $180 customer acquisiton cost is not a bad deal. > Vonage pays more than that per customer acquisiton and only gets $300 > ARPU at best--but then, they are also not doing so well financially :) > > -Clint > > > On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The problem with that is eventually all of those income sources (IPO, >> credit line, investors, etc.) dry up... and then you are left with >> revenue to try and pay all the others (hardware, long term and monthly >> debt, etc.). It can work, but I just don't see it in t
Re: [WISPA] McCaw losing money?
Just some general thoughts on large corporations, financing, and business. While Peter's analysis about silos and funding sources is right on, I'm going to skirt that discussion because it isn't a meaningful discussion on a superficial level. How do they make money? (Well, if they do make money--some don't). 1. Long term investments: While, in some respects the thirty year cycle doesn't work for Internet, in other respects it does, especially when you are talking transport. True, the equipment may need to change--but, fiber invested in now will be monetizable for the next 50 years. While I don't think that 10-20 year ROI is practical (or smart) for most smaller companies, many smaller players do hamstring themselves by only looking at models that can be profitable in 3-6 months. Financing may be needed, but it is often worth it. A good example to this is CLECs that took the easy money for several years and never made any long-term investments (I'm sure Peter can supply some details about the networks that were never built, despite billions of dollars that came and went). 2. Long term loans: I'm seperating this out, but it is tied into the long term investments. Sure, fiber layed today may take 5 years to pay for itself. But, if it is paid for out of a 15 year loan, it can be "profitable" from day one. 3. Better monetization: (More upsells). Take a look at your phone, cable, and cell bills, and think about how much of that is upsold from "basic" service. Basic cable costs $20; yet most people have packages costs $50 or more. Basic cell phone service is $35-45, but many pay closer to $100+. In other words, they get 2x-3x the revenue for additional services that don't really cost them anything. A good example of this is Verizon's FiOS buildout, which I gather Peter is quite sceptical of. $23 billion dollars by 2010; but only 200,000 customers by the end of 2006. On the surface, this does seem to be a little unprofitable for the next few years, but I'm not so sure... A good triple play customer can net a company an average of $125-$150 per month in revenue. This means, over the course of 10 years, that customer is worth $15,000! Those 200,000 customers, by 2015, will have paid Verizon a total of $3 billion dollars; given the reach of Verizon's buildout; those 200,000 customers are just a drop in the bucket. Given that Verizon can get long term loans on these projects; it can be "profitable" pretty early on. It may blow up in their face, given competition--but, I actually think they are in good shape considering how versitile fiber is; their network expansion will serve them for decades to come with only hardware upgrades necessary to squeeze more out of the fiber. Anyway, I digress :). I just know the Verizon numbers a little better, so it makes a clearer example. But, given that Clearwire is hoping to squeeze more than $50 ARPU from this ($600 per year) (combined voip/data), will eventually have more or less nationwide service with the ability to truly take on cellular networks in a big way, and so forth, $180 customer acquisiton cost is not a bad deal. Vonage pays more than that per customer acquisiton and only gets $300 ARPU at best--but then, they are also not doing so well financially :) -Clint On 3/29/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem with that is eventually all of those income sources (IPO, credit line, investors, etc.) dry up... and then you are left with revenue to try and pay all the others (hardware, long term and monthly debt, etc.). It can work, but I just don't see it in this industry. With $30/month accounts (with little or no add-ons that the cell companies used to have like vmail, long-distance, over-minute usage fees, etc.) there just isn't that much profit. The other difference is most telco's (and even cell companies) operate on a 30 year ROI. That just doesn't work in the internet world. I guess only time will tell. Travis Microserv Peter R. wrote: > I've spent much of this year analyzing the financials of Vonage and > other companies. I just finished looking at VZ. > (http://radinfo.blogspot.com/2007/03/vz-spending-billions.html) > The numbers make no sense. But then under GAAP accounting its all > about putting your numbers in the proper silo and never changing. > > Where does the money come from? > Some of it is debt. > Some of it is hardware financing. > Some of it is IPO money. > Some of it is a credit line. > Some from investors. > A little from revenue. > > George Rogato wrote: > >> I think it's the money raised from the sale of stock. >> Because if the 180 doesn't leave any profit, what about all the radio >> and tv advertizing they do? >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Adam, Regarding tapping at the edge between my upstream provider and me, I'm of the understanding that I need to be able to capture all of my customer's data, even that which passes between one customer and another, or between my customer and my mail server, or my customer and one of my other customers' colocated servers, etc. From that standpoint, the way I have been looking at it is to mirror the packets as close to the core of my network as possible, but no later than the first juncture where my customer's traffic can be routed or bridged to another customer or server. Since almost all of our customers have dedicated VLANs which terminate on a core layer 3 switch, for most of them I can just SPAN the corresponding layer 3 switch port. Some of them share a VLAN with other customers, though, so I will need to mirror a layer 2 switchport closer to the edge of my network for those. This definitely seems true, and I'm not certain how you even deal with traffic between two clients on the same AP other than not allow that scenario (without coming through a central router). There are many advantages to running a session-based approach to subscriber management; CALEA, I think, will just add another reason to take that approach. Regarding putting in a tap, is that something you put inline on the fiber / copper cable? If so, I wonder if that could be considered a completely compliant solution, as I was under the impression that the packet capture is not supposed to be noticeable to the customer at all. A tiny blip of downtime while I'm putting in the tap could theoretically be noticed Yes, they do go inline. Usually, they have one in and two outputs and have a failsafe mechanism where, if they lose power or otherwise fail, will still function. For inline taps, they would have to be setup from the get-go; this is best done in a maintenance window, in any case, since the ideal tapping point would have all of your customers traffic flowing through it, meaning that a tap insertion will momentarily cause a major disruption. Using port mirroring on a switch bypasses this, but isn't always an option. I also have the impression (maybe wrongly) that we may need to be able to establish a VPN between the device capturing the traffic and the law enforcement agency, to pipe the data to them Yes, this seems to be the case, although some places stated this as "preferred". This is the only aspect, however, that I've not been able to find specifics of. On the good side, I've not seen anything "official" in the sense that it is in the actual law or the spec, meaning, in a legal sense, it may not be a requirement. I agree it's really tough to know how to comply when the data format standards are simply not clear. That's why I'm really interested to hear from anyone who says they have a compliant solution already, to know what standard they are using Take a look at the opencalea project (opencalea.org). Their application, although crude, does the packet captures and dumps to the basic format that is specified. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 I agree with those of us who are hoping that an open-source solution will be developed (for *nix or Windows) ... ... and here's an interesting document I found linked to from the Mikrotik threads: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc ... Adam - Original Message - From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:22 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint > Hello Clint. > > You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We > don't > use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the > customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- > even > the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. > > I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I > really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. > I'd > just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network > is > fed from two different points, but from the same provider. > > This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that > he > would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said > that > he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then > that makes him an even more valuable provider. > > Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most > logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever > is > costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it > is > for the s
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Ralph, My apologies for the confusion. I think we are more or less on the same page method-wise for gathering that information; I made some assumptions that may have been applicable to your network. Now, as far as the pretty red package and bow for transferring the information to a law enforcement agency (LEA), I'll take a stab at that, although, as I'm not a lawyer, my usefulness is limited. Still, having paid for and read through the spec, it's not all that complicated of a red package. I don't think that it's worth the $10,000+ commercial solutions are going for. However, I've not been able (yet) to track down the actual transmission to the LEA, other than it is over some sort of VPN, so I am missing that piece of the puzzle. But the format itself is seems fairly simple to implement and, indeed, is already at least somewhat implemented with opencalea. Good resources to look at: - OpenCALEA (http://www.opencalea.org/) OpenCALEA is an initiative to create an open source platform to comply with CALEA. The mailing list is a very good resource. The software is rough, but already covers the basic needs of most ISPS to a point except the actual handoff to the law enforcement agency (LEA) OpenCALEA Overview (PDF) (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/presentations/karir.pdf) PDF overview of OpenCalea along with some conceptual network diagrams. Draft Specification (http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc) Reference specification for data portion of CALEA. Is functionally the same as the current (pay required) Baller Herbst Law Group CALEA Page (http://www.baller.com/calea.html) Great page with most of the important links. Look here for legal explanation, especially in the "Plain Language Summary" section. Cisco CALEA Webinar (http://www.opastco.org/docs/SP_CALEA_Webinar.ppt) CALEA Standards (http://www.askcalea.net/standards.html) Official list of standards CALEA interface. -- Notes from the above 1. The commercial packages are effectively devices that query a radius/authentication server and sniff on the network and then format the information to send to the law enforcement agency. No real magic. 2. OpenCALEA already has the basics of the system, although it doesn't seem to have any support (yet) for the authentication (AAA) portion. Future features will possibly include handoff to the LEA and more complex infrastructure for handling a wide, disparate network. 3. The only real requirements are 1. That the tap happens 2. The tap gathers both authentication/control information AND a complete capture of the session 3. That the output of 2 gets formatted according the the standard 4. That the information be transmitted to the LEA (seemingly through a VPN). 4. Based on 3, most of the equipment/solutions out there are heavily overengineered (see Cisco Webinar for an example). Most of the solutions are geared to a process that can be managed across carrier networks with subscribers into the millions. This is overkill for most WISPS :) On a given WISP of 1,000 subs, how often is a CALEA order actually going to happen? Infrequently enough that having to do some manual work each time is better than a high upfront cost (by manual work, I mean turning on a monitoring port/tap and manually initiating a VPN to the law enforcement agency as necessary). -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 On 3/27/07, Ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Clint. You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers, not CPE. We don't use non type accepted CPE and therefore don't have MT in any form at the customer end. However our site routers and even the edge router ARE MT- even the edge router. Those are what I am talking about. I didn't say anything about putting any certain number of units in. And I really don't see how that would turn into hundreds of monitoring nodes. I'd just as soon only have to mess with it at one or two places. Our network is fed from two different points, but from the same provider. This provider told another WISP in the area (that he also upstreams) that he would not be able to do CALEA capture for us, but has now publicly said that he can. We'll have to see how that goes as it develops. If he will, then that makes him an even more valuable provider. Cisco's CALEA solution is at the router level. This seems to be the most logical place to do the tap- especially if the equipment/license/whatever is costly. The fewer costly licenses that need to be bought, the better it is for the small guy. We are very small (make that "tiny"). We all know that a decent switch can mirror a port. We also know how to sniff packets. What we don't know is how to package this data up with a nice pretty red bow the way Joe Law wants it. As far as I understand it, this is what Cisco is saying they will do (although I'm sure it will
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of
Mark, You make some good observations, but I think you miss the overall point. In the end, the technical details of who can deliver what Mb/s doesn't matter when your competitor wins customers because they can offer services that you can't. It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to fiber backhaul infrastructure. Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not framed in IP and doesn't "count" in terms of bandwidth. They can do this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies. Since copper pairs can't handle the amount of data of coax or fiber, AT&T's U-Verse service runs ADSL2 service, splits off 20Mb/s or so for video, and then uses multicast so that each television "station needs to be sent to the node only once regardless of how many houses are watching it. This isn't video on demand, just simple television streamed over IP. Video on Demand can't really be done via a multicast system since it is on demand. Because of this, VOD is quite expensive per instance in terms of bandwidth/capacity. The exception to this method is satellite (in combo with DVR's); dish/directtv download their popular VOD titles to the DVR so that you can select them at any time. In any case, I think the discussion of Video on Demand is jumping the gun a little bit; it is much more difficult than traditional television service. In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any meaningful way. Even among cable companies that have been doing video quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule. For the next part, it is important to distinguish between broadcast and multicast. Broadcast sends the same traffic to all members of a network; multicast sends the same traffic to selected members of a network (for the discussion here, ones that have "opted in" to particular multicast streams). The bandwidth factor with wireless is limiting, no matter how you cut it. While your point about the limited backhaul capacity is valid (although "limited" is a relative term), the other technologies do have some "features" that allow providers to overcome limitations. To sum up these differences --- Cable is a high capacity (good) broadcast system (ehh, not so good) (in other words, there is lots of capacity, but all traffic goes to all subscribers). This allows for content to be broadcast to all subscribers, no problem. Video on demand, however, eventually becomes a problem because too many people ordering VOD at once can easily overwhelm the last mile for an entire subscriber base at once. --- ADSL is a low capacity (bad) point to point (good) system. This allows multicast to work quite well and is a quite elegant way to deliver content on a large scale. Video on demand actually works well in this scenario, but the last mile pipe for individual subscribers can be easily overwhelmed. --- Wireless is, well, the worse of both. When all is said and done, it is a low capacity broadcast medium. The broadcast aspect means that multicast is pretty much irrelevant, since a "selective join" means nothing when the information is getting sent to all subscribers regardless. The low capacity means there is simply not enough bandwidth to broadcast very many channels. There are some ways around this, but it does/would require concentrated buildout specifically for that purpose. Alternatively, partnering (as uneven of a partnership as it may be) with DirectTV/Dish can also be a good idea even if it doesn't actually make much money in and of itself (which it won't). Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart strategy. Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration. However, bundling services gives major players the means to aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining profitability, and, potential for new services based on the integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they never engage in an all-out price war. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumpti
Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Travis, There is an important distinction to be made between IPTV and Internet TV; IPTV is simply television delivered over IP whereas Internet TV is IPTV delivered over the Internet. This is an important distinction because no service provider (that I know of) is actually providing Internet TV, for the reasons that you defined--regulating quality of service over the Internet at large to deliver a solid customer experience with video is difficult. (There are some standalone offerings (such as joost) available over the Internet). All things considered, many of these services, using a combination of good content networks, compression, and buffering, do deliver a reasonably good user experience, although not as flawless as traditional television. However, IPTV itself is in use and is a very solid technology. IPTV is simply using IP as a delivery mechanism; usually, the service is located on the providers network and so has a very controlled path to the end user with little to no opportunity for service interuption. While the Internet at large may have variances in quality; your own network probably is (or should be!) of a consistantly good quality. There are many examples of very high quality IPTV implimentations that deliver at least as good of an experience as traditional television. IPTV over wireless is a different story, though, and is a bit of a technical feat due to the nature of wireless and the limited bandwidth. The main restriction, however, for most service providers isn't technical--the technology is sound and works quite well (wireless has some issues but is not impossible), but the simple problem of obtaining content. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise, although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network. Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic. If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from the wireless cells. The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or complicated. Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't be using it to begin with) has some sort of port mirroring built in that can easily function as a "tap". If not, ethernet and fiber taps are fairly cheap ($100-$200 or so on the second hand market). The tap can be hooked into a server running tcpdump or similiar software or various commercially available. This provides complete compliance for a fairly reasonable cost. Having a tap on each wireless access point, etc...needlessly complicates the whole affair and increases cost drastically. If you are doing backhaul via an Internet T1 or similiar, the upstream carrier may be doing some of this for you. However, you do have to analyze carefully to ensure that you are compliant in this situation. Note that this actually is a good idea to have even without CALEA as you can get a good idea as to what traffic is actually running on your network and can better track down virus/hackers/other malicious traffic. - I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the last month or so. Mikrotik first basically said "why should we care- we are in Latvia". After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more information about the subject. I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of the format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are. Let's get MT users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT to comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for other manufacturers. Here is a link to the threads http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=results&sid=723d81c229563812d900d2 0b3a31a900 Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Greene Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods Hi, While I appreciate Mark's comments and point of view, I for one would like to also start looking for ways to possibly comply with CALEA in a cost-effective way. I'm afraid that if the conversation here is limited to whether we should comply or not, we might lose the opportunity to share with each other about technical implementation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the conversation about whether to comply should be halted, just that some room be given to those of us who also want to speak about implementation. I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical standpoint. Thanks, Adam - Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote >> Mark, >> >> CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have >> been upheld by courts. > > YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying. > >> >> CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching >> (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the >> NSA-AT&T wiretapping / surveillance. > > The whole idea that WE are covered under CALEA is just FCC opinion, which > is > as changeable and variable as the wind. The ruling is capricious and > founded > on VAPOR, not substance. > > I just cannot believe you approve of unfunded federal mandates for public > purposes. CALEA was not. Misapplying CALEA is. > > This is not OSHA mandates. This is not the same as requiring that a tower > service company require their climbers to use a safety system. Not even > close. If the federal government is justified with making us provide, AT > OUR > EXPENSE, law enforcement services, then we're one little itty bitty non- > existent step from from being mandated to do ANYTHING they happen to wish > for, and the wish lists from the swamp on the Potomac are so large they > boggle the mind. > > And don't give me the "we play dead for regulatory favors in the future" > crap. Nothing we do will buy us one MOMENT's worth of consideration, in > EITHER direction. > > > Mark Koskenmaki
[WISPA] Re: Postini Mail Scanning Service
I think the technical details are covered here pretty well. In general, the service is rock solid and works quite well. At a former company, we deployed it and used it for several years and never had any complaints on a technical level that I can recall. It really did help retain our customers; we were usually able to pass the cost along to customers or sometimes give it as a freebie to customers looking to cancel. The only downside was pricing; Postini has altered their pricing in the past couple of years making it more expensive, especially for business domains (as far as I remember). We decided it wasn't worth it and replaced their service with Katharion, which we were very happy with and felt we got a lot better value. Postini's platform had a little more polish, though. - Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
