Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 6

[John Musbach <johnmusbach1 () gmail com>]

Unsubscribe.

On 3/1/10, nanog-request () nanog org <nanog-request () 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-request () nanog org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       nanog-owner () 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" <tony () lava net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
>       Group   (fwd)
> To: <lir () uralttk ru>
> Cc: lir () uralttk ru, nanog () nanog org, members-discuss () ripe net
> Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1003010910140.143 () 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:  tony () lava net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:09:51 -0600
> From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
>       Group   (fwd)
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4B8C1F0F.6080102 () 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 <LarrySheldon () 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" <oberman () es net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
>       Group   (fwd)
> To: Adam Waite <awaite () tuenti com>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org, lir () uralttk ru, members-discuss () ripe net
> Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291CC13 () ptavv es net>
>
> > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100
> > From: Adam Waite <awaite () 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: oberman () 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" <oberman () es net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
>       Group   (fwd)
> To: <lir () uralttk ru>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org, lir () uralttk ru, members-discuss () ripe net
> Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291CC13 () ptavv es net>
>
> > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100
> > From: Adam Waite <awaite () 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: oberman () 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 <wbailey () gci com>
> Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
> To: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>, NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
> Message-ID:
>       <5B3743FC2D0D8B41B27EE4F5EACA79D10D23C143 () 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:dts () 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.Crooks () 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:msokolov () 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 <dts () 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 <joelja () bogus com>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6
>       Group   (fwd)
> To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () cox net>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Message-ID: <4B8BF6D0.9000900 () 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" <bora () pnl gov>
> Subject: RE: Locations with no good Internet (was ISP in Johannesburg)
> To: 'Michael Sokolov' <msokolov () ivan Harhan ORG>, "nanog () nanog org"
>       <nanog () nanog org>
> Message-ID:
>       <BECAED262016464A9C59788DA6AC9690048525CC25 () 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:msokolov () 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.galbraith () 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