Unsubscribe. On 3/1/10, nanog-requ...@nanog.org <nanog-requ...@nanog.org> wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog@nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-requ...@nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-ow...@nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Antonio Querubin) > 2. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Larry Sheldon) > 3. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Kevin Oberman) > 4. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Kevin Oberman) > 5. RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > (Warren Bailey) > 6. Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) (Joel Jaeggli) > 7. RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > (Akyol, Bora A) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:12:58 -1000 (HST) > From: "Antonio Querubin" <t...@lava.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: <l...@uralttk.ru> > Cc: l...@uralttk.ru, nanog@nanog.org, members-disc...@ripe.net > Message-ID: <alpine.osx.2.00.1003010910140....@cust11794.lava.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > >>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > >> Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET >> when it existed, you are >> dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run >> network. >> >> Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of >> the money to keep >> the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or >> operational aspects of the >> network. > > I think DISA and DoD would argue about that claim with regard to NIPRNet > and SIPRNet :) > > Antonio Querubin > 808-545-5282 x3003 > e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:09:51 -0600 > From: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <4b8c1f0f.6080...@cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 3/1/2010 12:53 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:04:19 -0600 >> Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> wrote: >> >>> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>>>> network... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet >>>> and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. >>>> >>>> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... >>> >>> And that is only the TLD label. >>> >>> Is there still a DARPANET, ARPANET's successor? >>> >>> >> Depends on what you mean. > > I meant "is there still a DARPAnet" separate and apart from its progeny, > fragments, and follow-ons. > -- > "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to > take everything you have." > > Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals. > > Requiescas in pace o email > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio > Eppure si rinfresca > > ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs > http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:24 -0800 > From: "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: Adam Waite <awa...@tuenti.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org, l...@uralttk.ru, members-disc...@ripe.net > Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291c...@ptavv.es.net> > >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite <awa...@tuenti.com> >> >> >> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> > network... >> > >> > >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:24 -0800 > From: "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: <l...@uralttk.ru> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org, l...@uralttk.ru, members-disc...@ripe.net > Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291c...@ptavv.es.net> > >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite <awa...@tuenti.com> >> >> >> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> > network... >> > >> > >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:19:38 -0900 > From: Warren Bailey <wbai...@gci.com> > Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > To: Daniel Senie <d...@senie.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <5b3743fc2d0d8b41b27ee4f5eaca79d10d23c...@dtn1ex01.gci.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > How do you think we feel in Alaska. Until mid last year, most cellular > BTS were backhauled via DS1. Only Within the last 12 months have we > (insert obligatory "I work for a GSM and CDMA cellular provider serving > most of Alaska") even migrated from Local copper to fiber or air > interfaces (ds1/ds3 microwave). > > I've always been curious as to why the people who aren't being served > with "broadband" type of services haven't made a larger fuss about this. > The idea of running a copper pair to a home should have died long ago, > IMHO. As an RF Engineer, I see everyone turning to fiber and dry loops > when it's just not necessary or even cost effective. Put up the > *LICENSED* loop and call it a day.. Or a 5.8 RAD shot when you feel like > rolling the deice. Either way, cellular isn't the drop dead answer to > solving a sparsely covered area. > > About 95% of my state is not covered by cellular, but we've had no > problems deploying the largest cellular (rural obviously) provider in > the United States - just look up. It's not as expensive as you would > think. > > > //warren > > Warren Bailey > GCI Communication Corp. > RF Network Engineering > 907.868.5911 office > 907.903.5410 mobile > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Senie [mailto:d...@senie.com] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:21 PM > To: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > > Hopefully someone will bother to cover the rural areas with cell service > eventually. > > Much of western Massachusetts (by which I mean the Berkshires, more than > I mean the Pioneer Valley) is not covered by cell service. Where there > is cell service, most cell sites have only minimal data speeds. Vermont > is far worse, as is much of Maine. If there were 3G cellular, it'd be a > big step up. But I expect the inner cities will all be running LTE for > years before more rural areas even get voice service. > > On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:04 PM, Haney, Wilson wrote: > >> As we all know it's expensive building out any landline network. Rural > areas just get over looked. >> >> Check out this tech coming out of Motorola and to a Verizon/ATT tower > near you soon. >> >> 100 Mbps possible off cellular signals. Looks like they will throttle > it to 20 Mbps and less though. >> >> http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/lte-depth.html >> >> http://news.techworld.com/networking/3203498/motorola-predicts-20mbps- >> download-speed-with-future-lte-networks/ >> >> WPH >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Crooks, Sam [mailto:sam.cro...@experian.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:51 PM >> To: Michael Sokolov; nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) >> >> I had good luck getting my dad some form of broadband access in rural >> Oregon using a 3g router (Cradlepoint), a Wilson Electronics signal >> amp (model 811211), and an outdoor mount high gain antenna. It's not >> great, but considering the alternatives (33.6k dialup for $60/mo or >> satellite broadband for $150-$200/mo) it wasn't a bad deal for my dad >> when you consider that the dialup ISP + dedicated POTS line cost about > >> as much as the 5GB 3G data plan does. >> >> Speed is somewhere between dialup and Uverse or FIOS. I get the >> sense that it is somewhere in the range of 256 - 512 kbps with high >> latency (Dad's not one for much in the way of network performance > testing). >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org] >>> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 3:35 PM >>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) >>> >>> Daniel Senie <d...@senie.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Better than western Massachusetts, where there's just no >> connectivity >>> at = >>>> all. Even dialup fails to function over crappy lines. >>> >>> Hmm. Although I've never been to Western MA and hence have no idea >>> what the telecom situation is like over there, I'm certainly aware of > >>> quite a few places in "first world USA" where DSL is still a fantasy, > >>> let >> alone >>> fiber. >>> >>> As a local example, I have a friend in a rural area of Southern >>> California who can't get any kind of "high-speed Internet". I've run >> a >>> prequal on her address and it tells me she is 31 kft from the CO. >>> The CO in question has a Covad DSLAM in it, but at 31 kft those rural > >>> residents' options are limited to either IDSL at 144 kbps (not much >>> point in that) or a T1 starting at ~$700/month. The latter figure is > >>> typically well out of range for the kind of people who live in such >>> places. >>> >>> That got me thinking: ISDN/IDSL and T1 can be extended infinitely far > >>> into the boondocks because those signal formats support repeaters. >>> What >>> I'm wondering is how can we do the same thing with SDSL - and I mean >>> politically rather than technically. The technical part is easy: >>> some COs already have CLECs in them that serve G.shdsl (I've been >>> told that NEN does that) and for G.shdsl repeaters are part of the >>> standard (searching around shows a few vendors making them); in the >>> case of SDSL/2B1Q (Covad and DSL.net) there is no official support >>> for repeaters and hence no major vendors making such, but I can build > >>> such a >> repeater >>> unofficially. >>> >>> The difficulty is with the political part, and that's where I'm >> seeking >>> the wisdom of this list. How would one go about sticking a mid-span >>> repeater into an ILEC-owned 31 kft rural loop? From what I >>> understand (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!), when a CLEC >>> orders a loop from an ILEC, if it's for a T1 or IDSL, the CLEC >>> actually orders a T1 or ISDN BRI transport from the ILEC rather than >>> a dry pair, and any mid-span repeaters or HDSLx converters or the >>> like become the responsibility of the ILEC rather than the CLEC, >>> right? >>> >>> So how could one extend this model to provide, say, repeatered >>> G.shdsl service to far-outlying rural subscribers? Is there some >>> political process (PUC/FCC/etc) by which an ILEC could be forced to >>> allow a >> third >>> party to stick a repeater in the middle of their loop? Or would it >>> have to work by way of the ILEC providing a G.shdsl transport service > >>> to CLECs, with the ILEC being responsible for the selection, >>> procurement and deployment of repeater hardware? And what if the >>> ILEC is not interested in providing such a service - any PUC/FCC/etc >>> political process via which they could be forced to cooperate? >>> >>> Things get even more complicated in those locations where the CO has >>> a Covad DSLAM in it serving out SDSL/2B1Q, but no other CLEC serving >>> G.shdsl. Even if the ILEC were to provide a G.shdsl transport >>> service with repeaters, it wouldn't help with SDSL/2B1Q. My idea >>> involves building a gadget in the form factor of a standard mid-span >>> repeater that would function as a converter from SDSL/2B1Q to >>> G.shdsl: if the loop calls for one mid-span repeater, stick this >>> gadget in as if it were that repeater; if the loop calls for 2 or >>> more repeaters, use my gadget as the first "repeater" and then >>> standard G.shdsl repeaters after it. But of course this idea is >>> totally dependent on the ability of a third party to stick these >>> devices in the middle of long rural loops, perhaps in the place of >>> loading coils which are likely present on such loops. >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> MS >> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:18:08 -0800 > From: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 > Group (fwd) > To: Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Message-ID: <4b8bf6d0.9000...@bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote: >>> >>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>>> network... >>>> >>>> >>> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. >>> >>> ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... >> >> And that is only the TLD label. >> >> Is there still a DARPANET, ARPANET's successor? > > On the us military side the successor to Arpanet was Milnet, NIPRnet, > DDN etc. > > In some respects the modern analog is DREN ESNET and so on. > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:34:01 -0800 > From: "Akyol, Bora A" <b...@pnl.gov> > Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > To: 'Michael Sokolov' <msoko...@ivan.harhan.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" > <nanog@nanog.org> > Message-ID: > <becaed262016464a9c59788da6ac9690048525c...@email05.pnl.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Michael > > I think for the people in the situation you are describing, the best bet > would be > one of the wireless technologies. Someone on the thread mentioned LTE (which > should > be coming out in a couple years time), and to that we can add WiMAX and > even the 3G/3.5G HSPDA type wireless. The prices will not be USD19.99 but > for > less than USD70/month it is quite possible to get reasonable high speed > Internet > access. Will it be as fast as GigE to the house? No. But it will certainly > support > most web apps. The only challenge is that some of these wireless > technologies still have > much higher latency when compared to the wired DSL/cable modem links. > > Regards > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msoko...@ivan.harhan.org] > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:05 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg) > > Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.rric.net/ > > I'm very familiar with those folks of course, they've been an inspiration > to me for a long time. > > However, my needs are different. RRIC's model basically involves a > specific community with a well-defined boundary: bring the bandwidth > into the community via a bulk feed, then sublet inside the community. > > But I don't have a specific community in mind - I'm trying to develop a > more generic solution. (The case of my friend who is at 31 kft from a > Covad-enabled CO is only an example and nothing more.) Again, consider > a town with a Covad-enabled CO plus an outlying countryside. The people > in the town proper already have Covad xDSL available to them, and if we > could stick my SDSL/2B1Q repeater in the middle of some longer loops, it > would enable the people in the countryside to get *exactly the same* > Covad (or ISP-X-via-Covad) services as those in the town proper. > > My repeater approach would also allow me to stay out of ISP or ISP-like > business which I really don't want to get into - I would rather just > make hardware and let someone else operate it. A repeater is totally > unlike a router, it is not IP-aware, it just makes the loop seem shorter, > allowing farther-outlying users to connect to *existing* ISPs with an > already established business structure. > > Anyway, I just saw a post on NANOG about an area deprived of "high-speed > Internet" services and thought I would post my idea in the hope that > someone would have some ideas that would actually be *helpful* to what > I'm trying to do. If not - oh well, I'll just put the idea back on the > dusty shelf in the back of my mind until I'm ready to try presenting it > to the folks who own the CO-colocated DSLAMs it would have to work with > - gotta finish a few other things before I open that can of worms in the > earnest. > > MS > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6 > ************************************ >
-- Best Regards, John Musbach