Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 01:40, Quan Zhou  wrote:

>
> On 12/31/19 15:34, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions, specifically
> > TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1
>
> This is actually a good thing. There are many *valid technical reasons*
> behind this. You should do this too.
>

There's a far better use for port 443.

C.

Re: Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

[Quan Zhou]

On 12/31/19 15:34, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions, specifically 
TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1


This is actually a good thing. There are many *valid technical reasons* 
behind this. You should do this too.

Wikipedia drops support for old Android smartphones; mandates TLSv1.2 to read

[Constantine A. Murenin]

Dear all,

It came to my attention that anyone visiting en.wikipedia.org site from an
"old Android smartphone", as Wikipedia puts it, will be redirected to
https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning (
http://web.archive.org/web/20191217154700/https://en.wikipedia.org/sec-warning),
which, amongst other things, reads the following:



:中文:
维基百科正在使网站更加安全。您正在使用旧的浏览器，这在将来无法连接维基百科。请更新您的设备或联络您的IT管理员。以下提供更长，更具技术性的更新（仅英语）。
:
:We are removing support for insecure TLS protocol versions,
specifically TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1, which your browser software relies on to
connect to our sites. This is usually caused by using some ancient browser
or user agents like old Android smartphones. Also it could be interference
from corporate or personal "Web Security" software which actually
downgrades connection security.
:You must upgrade your browser or otherwise fix this issue to access
our sites. This message will remain until Jan 1, 2020. After that date,
your browser will not be able to establish a connection to our servers at
all.
:See also the HTTPS Browser Recommendations page on Wikitech for
more-detailed information.



This is yet another assault on the less fortunate folk for absolutely no
valid technical reason.  Yet another assault on the free flow of
information.

Everyone should be able to access an encyclopaedia without any such
restrictions; wasn't that the whole original premise behind Wikipedia in
the first place?  Why are they now precluding valid users from having
access?  What happened with the idea of following Postel's law?
http://web.archive.org/web/20191212212040/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle

If you have an old iPad device lying around, why should you be precluded
from having access to an encyclopaedia?  A Google search reveals that
there's already iOS users receiving these messages, too.  (BTW, Google
Search itself still works fine over plain HTTP — FYI — as does Bing and
Baidu, but not Yandex.)

If anyone is aware of a tracking-free TLS-free mirror, LMK.  I cannot link
to Wikipedia in good conscience anymore knowing that they block folks left
and right now.

C.

Re: Paging anyone from ntpd.org

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Rofl

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Dec 30, 2019, at 22:33, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
> On 12/30/19 8:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some reason. 
>> That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in our system. Your NS looks odd too, 
>> *.darkness-reigns.net and .nl? Is that legit? I don't know what it was 
>> before because I've never looked, but that seems off.
> 
> nevermind, I'm tired and confused ntpd.org with ntp.org. Just going to 
> wildcard *.ntpd.org to 127.0.0.1 and go back to sleep.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 16:52 -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> 
> Who needs more than 640Kb of memory?
> 
> We don't know what the future holds. This is an interesting read,
> featuring 5g to perform a "hologram" phone call:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45009458

While I appreciate that this is just "an example" of why I might need
more than "640Kb of memory" (or more pertinently, more than just a few
MBits/s of phone bandwidth), it's not a realistic/relevant example.

Holographic phone calls?  I barely ever use even video calling of any
sort.  The "picture" portion of the call almost always adds zero value
-- helping my mom load paper in her printer using Duo to actually see
and navigate the physical restrictions of her printer from 300KM away,
aside.

But really, these are still all just weak excuses (and to be clear, not
reasons) for why we "need more" of what is already sufficient. 
Consumerism as it's worst[1].

I'm not saying that maybe one day we won't need 25Mb/s to a hand-held
device, but hologram telephone calling, Netflixing and even video
calling, are not the use-cases, IMHO.

To head way O/T:
[1] I chuckled a this article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-chromecast-cheap-streaming-device-older-tvs-2019-12

Any TV which you can plug a Chromecast into, which is by any definition
a TV with HDMI, which is by just about any definition any "flat screen"
TV is not "old", IMHO.  Call me an old fuddy-duddy but an "old" TV is
that 13" B/W with 13 (was it?) VHF channels that my parents used to
have in the living room.

The very idea that any flat-screen/HDMI TV is "old" is just more
evidence of the rampant replace-anything-older-than-two-years-old
consumerism that grips North American society and is filling our (or
third-world countries') landfills.  North Americans need to learn to be
happy with what they have and buy (and pay for) the kind of quality
that lasts (i.e. press-board furniture need not apply).

b.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Paging anyone from ntpd.org

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/30/19 8:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some 
reason. That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in our system. Your NS looks odd too, 
*.darkness-reigns.net and .nl? Is that legit? I don't know what it was 
before because I've never looked, but that seems off.





nevermind, I'm tired and confused ntpd.org with ntp.org. Just going to 
wildcard *.ntpd.org to 127.0.0.1 and go back to sleep.

Paging anyone from ntpd.org

[Seth Mattinen]

Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some 
reason. That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in our system. Your NS looks odd too, 
*.darkness-reigns.net and .nl? Is that legit? I don't know what it was 
before because I've never looked, but that seems off.



~Seth

Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 2:33 PM Terrance Devor  wrote:

> That is the part I am a little confused about. Justification
>

One major advantage of working through a broker / auctioneer is that they
can help you with this. Documentation and justification is a hidden cost.
It's not hard but it is arcane. The broker can help you phrase the
explanation of your intended use in a way that doesn't cause you difficulty
when ARIN staff analyzes it for compliance with the many policies. And help
you make inexpensive changes and additions which will align your intended
use with those policies. All of which you really want to do before the
first time you tell ARIN staff what you intend to do with the addresses.
Cause it's harder to turn a no into a yes than to get your ducks in a row
so that it's a yes the first time.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 4:48 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
VoWIFI from your cell phone is essentially the same thing, except your 
phone has to build a tunnel to the providers EPC via an SGW because of 
the untrusted connectivity.



Yeah, I got the IPsec part right away. I guess they figure once it's in 
an encrypted tunnel it's nobody's business what's in it :)


Mike



On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:45 PM Michael Thomas > wrote:



On 12/30/19 4:41 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

Look up VoLTE.



Yeah I did, and confirmed it's just SIP+RTP over IP. Which is why
it's so frustratingly hard to find the same simple diagram or
whatever for vowifi.

Mike




On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:39 PM Michael Thomas mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:


On 12/30/19 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>   I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document
hole...


Yeah, no kidding. It's like acronym soup. I've been trying
all afternoon
to figure out vowifi and am now pretty certain that it's just
SIP
signaling over IP. But it's been really frustrating because I
still
haven't managed to find "RTP" explicitly. I would assume that
if you use
SIP you're probably going be shipping RTP packets for media,
but it's
amazing how hard this has been to confirm, and I've tried to
find this
out more than once. I even stumped Dave Oran...

Mike

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Keith Medcalf]

>> It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
>> consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
>> really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
>> the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
>> deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
>> vendors!

>You know that there is a massive amount of hype going on when they tie
>IoT to why it's definitely most certainly needed the mostest. I mean,
>your average IoT gadget is going to consume exactly how much bandwidth?
>And why on earth would I want to deploy using cellular when my router
>can have a zigby port and send it using my home connection?

Why on earth would I want to send it anywhere at all over the Internet?

One already has to disassemble and inspect very closely almost all electronic 
gadgets so that the internal embeded spyware microphone and camera and wireless 
can be removed with pliers.  This is just another thing to inspect for and 
forcibly disable.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ca By]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> Oh good :) someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :)
>

I can only take reading how others imagine it may work for so long


> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ca By  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> >> > > or
> >> > > need 25mbits to your phone,
> >> >
> >> > Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
> >> >
> >>
> >> this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
> >> from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
> >> with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
> >> shane's point, actually)
> >>
> >> 4G/LTE:
> >>   o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
> >> single bearer (well, IP anyway).
> >>   o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
> >>   o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
> >> and "thing on the network"
> >>
> >> 5G:
> >>   o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
> >> connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)
> >
> >
> > Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server
> at Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.
> >
>
> good question... I think for any IP flow in previous deployments the
> point where my ip packet went from 'radio' to 'ip networking' could
> have been a fair distance away (super cell in 2g/3g worlds) from my,
> bending my IP path significantly from me to the thing I'm talking to.
> (introducing latency and other pokery from the carrier side swapping
> around from radio/3gpp/etc to "ip on ethernet").
>
> In the LTE world it's POSSIBLE that that transition could happen at
> the tower base (unlikely, but possible, theoretically). So, given some
> regional network and aggregation / etc my IP packet's path COULD be
> 'better'. That should enable better latency/jitter/etc. In practice
> the 3g ~300ms to send a packet from 'reston virginia' to 'ashburn
> virginia' has become ~20-40ms.
>
> Note, I'm not super interested in point-to-point measurements, but the
> general path being 'better' for user packets.
>

In order for mobility to work, there has to be a topology abstraction for
the notion of anchor point where the user always is. This anchor point in a
mobile network may have been 2 locations in the usa 15 years ago (all users
are anchored to 1 of these 2 places), but may be closer to 60 locations
now.  Ymmv depending on your carrier.  But, there are still only ~10 major
internet peering locations

Cell sites are normally a hub and spoke design in a metro area.   FB / GOOG
/ AWS only pick-up traffic from eyeball networks in  ~10 places in the usa.
Networks optimize for delivering of tonnage to those 10 places. None of
that fundamentally changes between LTE and NR. Cell sites aggregate in
buildings, those building connect to peering points.

Minimally, a 5g network is just hanging radios just like in LTE, and
backhauling those radios to hubs, just like LTE.  mmWave requires more
radios, low band less radios.

That said, things have improved in the last 15 years. All mobile traffic
for one carrier i know used to go to Seattle or Atlanta.  Which was
hilarious, since most people live in NY or CA.  Nowadays, generally,
packets from a handset start destination routing one hop (5-10ms metro-e)
up from the cell site... so  the packets don’t find themselves on a path of
indirection beyond your local metro area, and this is likely not a detour
along the path to internet peering.

Albuquerque packets will find their way to peerings in denver or dallas.
Birmingham packets will find their way to Peerings in Atlanta or Miami ...




> > Just random samples of what people post online
> >
> > Vzw 5g 19 ms
> >
> > https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448
>
> 19ms from 'georgetown' to  so I can't really tell what the
> uplift on a straight ping from (for example) georgetown university
> campus ->  might be.
> either way... maybe it's 12-14 ms (since the test seems to talk about
> Annapolis which ought not be more than 3-4 ms from DC proper on fiber)
> that's not so bad really.
>
> > Att 5ge 34ms
> > https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784
> >
>
> yea no endpoints specified so: "testing that the internet is on fire"
> :(
>
> > Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
> > https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600
>
> i'm guessing he means: "north arlington virginia" to "washington
> dc"... 34ms is 'long' :( much more uplift on that than I'd expect.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>   o simplifies management? (maybe?)
> >
> >
> > Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Dec 30, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brian J. Murrell br...@interlinx.bc.ca 
wrote:

> Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

Who needs more than 640Kb of memory?

We don't know what the future holds. This is an interesting read, featuring 5g 
to perform a "hologram" phone call:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45009458

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 4:41 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

Look up VoLTE.



Yeah I did, and confirmed it's just SIP+RTP over IP.  Which is why it's 
so frustratingly hard to find the same simple diagram or whatever for 
vowifi.


Mike




On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:39 PM Michael Thomas > wrote:



On 12/30/19 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
>   I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document hole...


Yeah, no kidding. It's like acronym soup. I've been trying all
afternoon
to figure out vowifi and am now pretty certain that it's just SIP
signaling over IP. But it's been really frustrating because I still
haven't managed to find "RTP" explicitly. I would assume that if
you use
SIP you're probably going be shipping RTP packets for media, but it's
amazing how hard this has been to confirm, and I've tried to find
this
out more than once. I even stumped Dave Oran...

Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:


  I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document hole...



Yeah, no kidding. It's like acronym soup. I've been trying all afternoon 
to figure out vowifi and am now pretty certain that it's just SIP 
signaling over IP. But it's been really frustrating because I still 
haven't managed to find "RTP" explicitly. I would assume that if you use 
SIP you're probably going be shipping RTP packets for media, but it's 
amazing how hard this has been to confirm, and I've tried to find this 
out more than once. I even stumped Dave Oran...


Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=5G+NR 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Brandon Martin"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 6:19:06 PM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

On 12/30/19 6:31 PM, Ca By wrote: 
> is is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR 
> can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is 
> big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR. 

Is/are there defined standard(s) for this NR? I was of the impression that we 
were basically just tweaking the LTE-A MAC and OFDM[A] PHY for wider bandwidth 
(mid-band and mmwave) or newly available low-band (600MHz) spectrum 
deployments. AFAIK, there's no new PHY tricks going on for "5G" that aren't 
already being used for "4G" LTE-A deployments on existing mainstream spectrum. 
Aside from the new bands, what's the burden on the handset vs. base? A lot of 
tricks (beamforming, multi-site MIMO, etc.) can be done without real changes to 
the handset, and we can thankfully mostly upgrade the OFDM PHY to support e.g. 
denser modulation constellations in a somewhat incremental manner. 

I already see lots of outdoor small cells on fiber in dense retail, academic, 
business, etc. areas even in suburbs. I assume they're quite common in urban 
areas, though I don't get to do much work in those environments. Deployment of 
these started well before any 5G hype I was aware of even on the network 
operator side (think 6+ years ago). 

All that is to say, what's the magic secret sauce that makes "5G" any real 
different from "modern 4G"? I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP 
document hole... 
-- 
Brandon Martin 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brandon Martin]

On 12/30/19 6:31 PM, Ca By wrote:
> is is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR 
> can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is 
> big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR. 

Is/are there defined standard(s) for this NR?  I was of the impression that we 
were basically just tweaking the LTE-A MAC and OFDM[A] PHY for wider bandwidth 
(mid-band and mmwave) or newly available low-band (600MHz) spectrum 
deployments.  AFAIK, there's no new PHY tricks going on for "5G" that aren't 
already being used for "4G" LTE-A deployments on existing mainstream spectrum.  
Aside from the new bands, what's the burden on the handset vs. base?  A lot of 
tricks (beamforming, multi-site MIMO, etc.) can be done without real changes to 
the handset, and we can thankfully mostly upgrade the OFDM PHY to support e.g. 
denser modulation constellations in a somewhat incremental manner.

I already see lots of outdoor small cells on fiber in dense retail, academic, 
business, etc. areas even in suburbs.  I assume they're quite common in urban 
areas, though I don't get to do much work in those environments.  Deployment of 
these started well before any 5G hype I was aware of even on the network 
operator side (think 6+ years ago).

All that is to say, what's the magic secret sauce that makes "5G" any real 
different from "modern 4G"?  I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP 
document hole...
-- 
Brandon Martin

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Oh, for sure it's driven by equipment manufacturers. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Christopher Morrow"  
To: "Brian J. Murrell"  
Cc: "nanog list"  
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 4:39:23 PM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell  wrote: 
> 
> On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote: 
> > 
> > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want 
> > or 
> > need 25mbits to your phone, 
> 
> Who needs 25mbits to their phone? 
> 

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts 
from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up 
with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of 
shane's point, actually) 

4G/LTE: 
o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a 
single bearer (well, IP anyway). 
o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base 
o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User' 
and "thing on the network" 

5G: 
o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP 
connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?) 
o simplifies management? (maybe?) 

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g 
deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet 
circles', where 4G is 'miles'. 
(yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...) 

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and 
consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is 
really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up 
the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of 
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the 
vendors! 

-chris 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

Oh good :) someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :)

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ca By  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
>> > > or
>> > > need 25mbits to your phone,
>> >
>> > Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
>> >
>>
>> this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
>> from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
>> with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
>> shane's point, actually)
>>
>> 4G/LTE:
>>   o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
>> single bearer (well, IP anyway).
>>   o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
>>   o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
>> and "thing on the network"
>>
>> 5G:
>>   o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
>> connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)
>
>
> Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at 
> Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.
>

good question... I think for any IP flow in previous deployments the
point where my ip packet went from 'radio' to 'ip networking' could
have been a fair distance away (super cell in 2g/3g worlds) from my,
bending my IP path significantly from me to the thing I'm talking to.
(introducing latency and other pokery from the carrier side swapping
around from radio/3gpp/etc to "ip on ethernet").

In the LTE world it's POSSIBLE that that transition could happen at
the tower base (unlikely, but possible, theoretically). So, given some
regional network and aggregation / etc my IP packet's path COULD be
'better'. That should enable better latency/jitter/etc. In practice
the 3g ~300ms to send a packet from 'reston virginia' to 'ashburn
virginia' has become ~20-40ms.

Note, I'm not super interested in point-to-point measurements, but the
general path being 'better' for user packets.

> Just random samples of what people post online
>
> Vzw 5g 19 ms
>
> https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

19ms from 'georgetown' to  so I can't really tell what the
uplift on a straight ping from (for example) georgetown university
campus ->  might be.
either way... maybe it's 12-14 ms (since the test seems to talk about
Annapolis which ought not be more than 3-4 ms from DC proper on fiber)
that's not so bad really.

> Att 5ge 34ms
> https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784
>

yea no endpoints specified so: "testing that the internet is on fire" :(

> Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
> https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600

i'm guessing he means: "north arlington virginia" to "washington
dc"... 34ms is 'long' :( much more uplift on that than I'd expect.

>
>
>>
>>   o simplifies management? (maybe?)
>
>
> Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another thing.
>

:) "long term, when you decom 3g and 4g for 5g! you know, when 6g arrives..." :)
It's amazing to me that there's not a unified management system to
offer network management across radio technologies? and some
requirement from the carriers to push the vendors to provide a
standards based interface to keep that management system in play long
term? Maybe there is and it's running YANG/OpenConfig/etc ? Maybe it's
silly to want that though because the radio world is 'so very
different' from the plain-jim IP world? and/or there's enough
difference between 3/4/5g that using a single management system just
isn't practical?

>> keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
>> deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
>> circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
>> (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)
>
>
> This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR 
> can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is 
> big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.
>

oh sure, who gets the 'right' spectrum is going to drive what each
carrier can 'do' with the 5g.
but generally speaking, particular carriers aside... "5g is beneficial
to users because?" (again, aside from speed increases).

"Lower cost, because more people on less equipment and lower
management costs" (pass that on to the users, right?)
"more reach into places where cell coverage is spotty?"
"new tech options over the network provided?"

> There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz. 
> Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave. That 
> said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.
>
> Horses for courses. No silver bullet.  All the best mid-band spectrum , 
> 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 3:34 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:09 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:


On 12/30/19 2:46 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems
like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does.
Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going
on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just
tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a
quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?

My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP.  I don't know
how the media moves.  I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the
wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network
calls via IP these days, anyway.


Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different
codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are
going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack
since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer
facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago.

Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an
overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to
avoid the 3GPP tar pit.

I had thought the 'benefit' of LTE (specific to Voice) was a SIP UA
was implemented at the handset for all 'voice' over the LTE network.
(voice calls through your carrier - VoLTE)
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE
I finally found something and it is indeed SIP/RTP over a LTE with some 
extra qos secret sauce. I have no idea what's going on differently in 
the MAC.


So we're definitely almost there. And that's a good thing.

Mike

[OFF-TOPIC detour] Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Karl Auer]

Shane Ronan
> > Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency
> > and support for UE desification, just to name a few.

Mildly funny thing: I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out what
"desification" was, before realising it was "densification" misspelled.

Was not helped by Google insisting I must have meant "desertification",
the fact that it's a really common misspelling, and the fact that
"desification" does actually mean something...

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Old fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4 9B0B 1D75

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:09 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 12/30/19 2:46 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
> > On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >> Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems
> >> like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does.
> >> Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going
> >> on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just
> >> tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a
> >> quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?
> >
> > My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP.  I don't know
> > how the media moves.  I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the
> > wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network
> > calls via IP these days, anyway.
>
>
> Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different
> codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are
> going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack
> since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer
> facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago.
>
> Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an
> overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to
> avoid the 3GPP tar pit.

I had thought the 'benefit' of LTE (specific to Voice) was a SIP UA
was implemented at the handset for all 'voice' over the LTE network.
(voice calls through your carrier - VoLTE)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE

There are, or were when I last got told what's what... some problems
at the GRX with VoLTE when roaming... like: "The traffic appears as
handset data not handset calls" on the GRX.

For a long time in the start of the LTE network deployments handsets
just kept on using 3g (or less) for voice, because the radios existed,
the cell towers were equiped and 'VoLTE is scary still!"

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ca By]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > > or
> > > need 25mbits to your phone,
> >
> > Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
> >
>
> this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
> from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
> with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
> shane's point, actually)
>
> 4G/LTE:
>   o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
> single bearer (well, IP anyway).
>   o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
>   o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
> and "thing on the network"
>
> 5G:
>   o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
> connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)


Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at
Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.

Just random samples of what people post online

Vzw 5g 19 ms

https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

Att 5ge 34ms
https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784

Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g
https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600



>   o simplifies management? (maybe?)
>

Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another
thing.


> keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
> deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
> circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
> (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)


This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR).
NR can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band.
Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz
NR.

There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz.
Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave.
That said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.

Horses for courses. No silver bullet.  All the best mid-band spectrum ,
balanced volume and propagation, got deployed in the 90s as pcs / gsm, and
re-deployed in the 10s as umts and LTE.  Low band is great for penetration
and coverage with a few cells, mmwave is great with line of sight...
midband is the sweet spot in the middle.

The future requires all tools available.


>
> It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
> consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
> really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
> the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
> deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
> vendors!
>
> -chris


NR does operationalize more spectrum and allows bigger aggregate pools
(like LACP) The new mmwave spectrum is the last to come to market because
it’s value is limited in the general case.


>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 2:46 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems 
like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. 
Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going 
on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just 
tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a 
quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?


My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP.  I don't know 
how the media moves.  I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the 
wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network 
calls via IP these days, anyway.



Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different 
codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are 
going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack 
since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer 
facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago.


Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an 
overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to 
avoid the 3GPP tar pit.


Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 2:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:


It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
vendors!



You know that there is a massive amount of hype going on when they tie 
IoT to why it's definitely most certainly needed the mostest. I mean, 
your average IoT gadget is going to consume exactly how much bandwidth? 
And why on earth would I want to deploy using cellular when my router 
can have a zigby port and send it using my home connection?


Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brandon Martin]

On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems 
like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or 
maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on 
under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just 
tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick 
and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?


My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP.  I don't know how 
the media moves.  I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the wheel. 
Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network calls via 
IP these days, anyway.


Mostly what I want in the future is a dollop of EF QoS bits and let me 
determine how to use them...


Believe it or not, several of the major wireless and even wireline 
carriers seem to do this to some degree, though my evidence is 
anecdotal.  They don't seem to drop when you exceed your dollop, though, 
but rather re-mark.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 1:35 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 12/30/19 4:14 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency 
and jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no 
reason for TDM to phones which is a significant development because 
cell phones are probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN 
stuff these days as landlines wither and die. I would think that 
carriers would embrace that since it would be a cost-down, but I'm 
sure I'm wrong since that would be admit defeat to IP.


VoLTE is already essentially VoIP, including packet switched media, 
with some MAC layer QoS guarantees as I understand it. Now, maybe 
those MAC layer guarantees essentially amount to a dedicated OFDMA 
sub-carrier during a voice call.  That I cannot speak to as I'm not 
intimately familiar with the LTE/LTE-A air interface.


I can say that plain ol' best-effort LTE data services are generally 
sufficient for VoIP in my experience if you have "good coverage".  
That means what I'd generally consider "toll-grade" quality in terms 
of latency and, more inmportantly, jitter.  SSH is similarly quite 
usable generally.  If you're on the fringe of a cell or have a cell 
that's overloaded, YMMV.



Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems 
like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or 
maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on 
under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just 
tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick 
and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?


Mostly what I want in the future is a dollop of EF QoS bits and let me 
determine how to use them...


Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > or
> > need 25mbits to your phone,
>
> Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
>

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts
from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up
with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of
shane's point, actually)

4G/LTE:
  o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a
single bearer (well, IP anyway).
  o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base
  o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User'
and "thing on the network"

5G:
  o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP
connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)
  o simplifies management? (maybe?)

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g
deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet
circles', where 4G is 'miles'.
(yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the
vendors!

-chris

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brandon Martin]

On 12/30/19 3:24 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:


If we solve the issue of endpoint identity on a connection
independent of the transport, so that your video stream
of the game doesn't have to stop and restart every time
you shift from one access point to the next, I could
definitely see wi-Fi beating 5G.

Otherwise, I think 5G will win, in terms of better
user experience when non-stationary.


In theory, this is what "Hotspot 2.0" is designed to solve.  You 
authenticate to the ESSID using your mobile carrier credentials, and the 
resulting connection backhauls over an Internet tunnel to your carrier 
who can handle the hand-off/roaming transparently for you.


It also includes some provisions for settlement so that Wi-Fi operator 
can get a kickback from the mobile carrier for offloading their traffic. 
 I'm sure that will be lucrative for mom and pop coffee shops...


Of course, this is also what Mobile IP was intended to solve, and we all 
know how widely that's deployed.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brandon Martin]

On 12/30/19 4:14 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency and 
jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no reason for 
TDM to phones which is a significant development because cell phones are 
probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN stuff these days as 
landlines wither and die. I would think that carriers would embrace that 
since it would be a cost-down, but I'm sure I'm wrong since that would 
be admit defeat to IP.


VoLTE is already essentially VoIP, including packet switched media, with 
some MAC layer QoS guarantees as I understand it.  Now, maybe those MAC 
layer guarantees essentially amount to a dedicated OFDMA sub-carrier 
during a voice call.  That I cannot speak to as I'm not intimately 
familiar with the LTE/LTE-A air interface.


I can say that plain ol' best-effort LTE data services are generally 
sufficient for VoIP in my experience if you have "good coverage".  That 
means what I'd generally consider "toll-grade" quality in terms of 
latency and, more inmportantly, jitter.  SSH is similarly quite usable 
generally.  If you're on the fringe of a cell or have a cell that's 
overloaded, YMMV.

--
Brandon Martin

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Keith Medcalf]

>> Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
>> or need 25mbits to your phone,

>Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

I can only talk to one party at a time, so there is no need for more than a 
single bearer channel worth of bandwidth.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Marshall, Quincy]

Lord willing about a tenth of what I’m using now; aka retirement.

LQM3

> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
> Shane Ronan
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor
>
> Again, you are looking only at today, how much bandwidth will you need in 10 
> years?
>
> Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency and support 
> for UE desification, just to name a few.
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:12 PM Matt Hoppes 
> mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> 
> wrote:
> What are the other benefits of 5G?   My 4G/LTE works when I go behind
> things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits
> which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.
>
> On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing
> > out on many of the other benefits.
> >
> > And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi
> > roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.
> >
> > Shane
---
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/30/19 12:36 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I mean it's inevitable that 5G replaces 4G. It just comes down to the 
spectrum the given carrier uses that dictates speed and range. In the 
US, AT and Verizon are deploying in the millimeter bands. They'll do 
a gig at a few hundred feet. T-Mobile is using 600 MHz, so it'll 
probably only do 100 megabit (based on the small channels they have), 
but it'll go 10+ miles through nearly anything. Sprint is in the 
middle. They'll be able to do hundreds of megs at miles of range.



Lower latency is another advantage of 5G.



The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency and 
jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no reason for 
TDM to phones which is a significant development because cell phones are 
probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN stuff these days as 
landlines wither and die. I would think that carriers would embrace that 
since it would be a cost-down, but I'm sure I'm wrong since that would 
be admit defeat to IP.



Mike

Re: power to the internet

[John Lightfoot]

That's exactly what Powerwalls are.

In Vermont, Green Mountain Power had a deal where they bought 2000 Powerwalls 
and gave them to customers throughout the state.  Customers could get up to 
two, paying only $1500 each for the installation and agreeing to let GMP manage 
them.  GMP now has ~2.7 gWh of stored capacity, distributed throughout the 
state to minimize transmission costs.  In times of high electricity spot market 
prices or outages, GMP draws down the Powerwalls, then refills them at night 
when prices are lower.  

The Powerwalls also act as a UPS for the whole house.  When bad weather is 
predicted in an area, GMP makes sure your Powerwall is full.  My town had a 4+ 
hour outage a few weeks back and I had power the whole time, the microwave 
clock didn't even reset.  I only have one Powerwall but could easily last 2+ 
days with it, and it's silent, unlike a generator.

--John Lightfoot

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  on behalf of Howard Leadmon 

Date: Monday, December 30, 2019 at 3:09 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: power to the internet

   Isn't that what the Tesla Power Wall's are?   I thought that was the 
fill measure for when the solar panels aren't generating.   I have never 
gotten anything, but know when you look on their site for Solar, they 
try and pitch the batter power walls to run your house for days if needed..


---
Howard Leadmon
PBW Communications, LLC
http://www.pbwcomm.com

On 12/26/2019 2:08 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> I just looked up Telsa's battery packs and they seem to be between
>> 60-100kwh. Our daily use is about 30kwh in the fall, so it's only 2-3
>> days. Admittedly we can turn off the hot tub, water heater, etc to
>> stretch it out. And of course, that means that you can't drive it... The
>> one thing that would be for everybody's good is using them during peak
>> hours. If you work normal hours, then that only gets part of the peak
>> load, unfortunately.
> Just buy three of them.  Two to leave in the garage as a "mobile battery 
> pack" and one to drive around.
>
> All problems solved.
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ben Cannon]

5g protocol will of course eventually replace LTE simply because it makes 
better use of the real asset, spectrum.

5G is just a protocol it changes dramatically depending on spectrum.

-Ben

> On Dec 30, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> 
> I mean it's inevitable that 5G replaces 4G. It just comes down to the 
> spectrum the given carrier uses that dictates speed and range. In the US, 
> AT and Verizon are deploying in the millimeter bands. They'll do a gig at a 
> few hundred feet. T-Mobile is using 600 MHz, so it'll probably only do 100 
> megabit (based on the small channels they have), but it'll go 10+ miles 
> through nearly anything. Sprint is in the middle. They'll be able to do 
> hundreds of megs at miles of range.
> 
> 
> Lower latency is another advantage of 5G.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Matt Hoppes" 
> To: "Shane Ronan" , "Mark Tinka" 
> 
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" 
> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor
> 
> What are the other benefits of 5G?   My 4G/LTE works when I go behind 
> things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits 
> which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.
> 
> On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing 
> > out on many of the other benefits.
> > 
> > And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi 
> > roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.
> > 
> > Shane
> 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:
> 
> Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> or
> need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

> but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time
> living without it.

I already live without it (by a long shot) and am not sure what I'd do
with it if I had it except rack up huge overage bills a week into the
month.  Well, not really but that's because I honestly have no use for
that kind of speed to my phone.  What am I supposed to do with that? 
Go to the park and watch Netflix in 4K on my 2K phone screen?

The irony of such speeds in North America (Canada in particular) are
ludicrous usage limits that we have and how quickly we'd use up our
minuscule data alottemnt with such speeds.  But then again, overage
fees are what are paying the bills over at the mobile companies.

b.

> 
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:24 AM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end
> > user will
> > build it with their broadband connection?
> > 
> > With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to
> > be
> > within. Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber
> > to the
> > home?
> > Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Holiday route leak

[Ryan Hamel]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 12:44 PM Job Snijders  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:06:24PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > If there are AS46844 folk listening around their eggnog ... it'd be
> > nice if you would stop leaking prefixes: https://imgur.com/a/Js0YvP2
> >
> > this from the current view at: https://bgp.he.net/AS15169#_graph6
> >
> > I believe at least: 2620:0:1000::/40
> >
> > was leaking around your noction filters.
> >
> > It is also possible that AS11878 should check their in/out filtering
> > as well, since thats' the path I see in the he.net data...
> >
> > thanks!
> > -chris
> >
> > it looks like this is a noction box doing some internal TE things and
> > leaking around filters...though normally that appears as a subnet, not
> > an exact route match, so perhaps not this time?
>
> Can anyone offer ground-truth confirmation that the Noction IRP software
> actually supports IPv6?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>

It does.

https://www.noction.com/news/noction_irp_release_14_ipv6

Ryan

>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing out
on many of the other benefits.

And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi
roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.

Shane

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:00 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 30/Dec/19 16:50, Shane Ronan wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard
> > time living without it.
>
> Which you can certainly achieve over wi-fi without hassle. I posit that
> in many locations where abundant bandwidth to your phone is required, a
> vast majority of suitable wi-fi options exist, and you (and others) use
> one or more of them.
>
> Wi-fi will beat 5G, over the long term.
>
> Mark.
>

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Keith Medcalf]

On Monday, 30 December, 2019 13:24, Matthew Petach  
wrote:

>Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to
>cell tower handoffs when moving.  It's fine when you're
>stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from
>one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping
>and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP
>address every time.

So the primary benefit of 5G is that it will allow for an increase in asshats 
not watching where they are going because they are busy staring at their phones?

I suppose there is the advantage then of more dead asshats.  At least they will 
only walk in front of a speeding lorry once and then be dead, thus solving the 
problem.

Maybe 5G *is* a good thing as it will inherently encourage clean-up of the gene 
pool.  Now if only we could figure out a way to reliably get them out of the 
gene pool before they reached breading age ...

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[Josh Luthman]

I did my first one back in 2015 I think.  It's really not that difficult.
Give me a call if you would like a general idea on what needs to be done.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:53 PM Terrance Devor  wrote:

> Thank you Chris, and I really appreciate the information I have received
> so far.
>
> Apologies everyone for the noise.
>
> Terrance
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to bet that:
>>   1) the docs at ARIN talk about all you need to do to get this mission
>> accomplished
>>   2) questions to the hostmaster/registration-services-desk will also get
>> all of these questions answered
>>   3) taking up 10k+ people's time on what is solved with the above 2
>> things isn't really helpful anymore
>>
>> call the registration services desk, Mr Sweating already provided the
>> contact details.
>> good luck fellow traveler.
>> -chris
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:41 PM Pennington, Scott <
>> scott.penning...@cinbell.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Terrance.   I don't represent ARIN in any way, but typically proof of
>>> dual BGP homing with 2 or more upstreams is adequate for my customers.
>>>
>>> Get Outlook for Android 
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Terrance Devor 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2019 2:33:09 PM
>>> *To:* Pennington, Scott 
>>> *Cc:* Kaiser, Erich ; Darin Steffl <
>>> darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>; North American Network Operators' Group <
>>> nanog@nanog.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN
>>>
>>> Hello Scott,
>>>
>>> That is the part I am a little confused about. Justification? We are
>>> cloud based solution/service providers with ISP reseller accounts and
>>> increased amount of long term relationships who need dedicated IP
>>> addresses. Securing a /24 is our entry point and we will require more as we
>>> move forward. What type of justifications will they need?
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>
>>> Terrance
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:23 PM Pennington, Scott <
>>> scott.penning...@cinbell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not a change. You've always had to justify in order to
>>> legitimately transfer even from an auction.
>>>
>>> Get Outlook for Android 
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of Kaiser, Erich <
>>> er...@gotfusion.net>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2019 1:13:53 PM
>>> *To:* Darin Steffl 
>>> *Cc:* North American Network Operators' Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN
>>>
>>> They have changed their policies from what I can tell.  It was easier to
>>> get IPs when there were none and you were buying from an auction but now
>>> that they have them they want you to fill out a bunch of info and recertify
>>> everything.
>>>
>>>
>>> Erich Kaiser
>>> The Fusion Network
>>> er...@gotfusion.net
>>> Office: 815-570-3101
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 11:23 AM Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In the most polite manner possible, RTFM.
>>>
>>> ARIN has all the info on their website on how to request resources. It
>>> is not difficult. I've never had to call them before.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 9:53 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/28/19 7:12 AM, Terrance Devor wrote:
>>> > Thank You Jorge! What is important for us is not to overpay That's
>>> > why auctions are really a last resort. Can someone please walk me
>>> > through this with a few links? This is my first time going
>>> through this
>>> > process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ask ARIN. They will help you.
>>>
>>>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

Again, you are looking only at today, how much bandwidth will you need in
10 years?

Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency and
support for UE desification, just to name a few.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:12 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> What are the other benefits of 5G?   My 4G/LTE works when I go behind
> things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits
> which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.
>
> On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> > If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing
> > out on many of the other benefits.
> >
> > And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi
> > roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.
> >
> > Shane
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

I mean it's inevitable that 5G replaces 4G. It just comes down to the spectrum 
the given carrier uses that dictates speed and range. In the US, AT and 
Verizon are deploying in the millimeter bands. They'll do a gig at a few 
hundred feet. T-Mobile is using 600 MHz, so it'll probably only do 100 megabit 
(based on the small channels they have), but it'll go 10+ miles through nearly 
anything. Sprint is in the middle. They'll be able to do hundreds of megs at 
miles of range. 




Lower latency is another advantage of 5G. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "Shane Ronan" , "Mark Tinka"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:12:13 PM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

What are the other benefits of 5G? My 4G/LTE works when I go behind 
things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits 
which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device. 

On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: 
> If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing 
> out on many of the other benefits. 
> 
> And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi 
> roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G. 
> 
> Shane 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

The 95th percentile on the connection I share among four houses and a farm has 
a 95th percentile under 10 megs. 

*shrugs* 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Shane Ronan"  
To: "Matt Hoppes"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 8:50:24 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 


Verizon has already proven in 5 cities that you can run fiber to the node and 
provide 1G fixed wireless service to both single and multi family homes. This 
reduces the fiber cost and the headache of dealing with landlords in MDU's. 


Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 
25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time living 
without it. 


On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:24 AM Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > 
wrote: 


We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will build 
it with their broadband connection? 

With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. 
Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home? 
Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device? 

Re: Iran cuts 95% of Internet traffic

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 21:37, Paul Nash wrote:

> This was (not quite) how bits of sub-saharan Africa got netnews in the early 
> days.  Store-and-forward, UUCP links over dial-ups, and the occasional mag 
> tape couriered over.

There are some on this list who can corroborate the mag tape shipping...
seems like I'm still too young, after all :-).

Mark.

Re: Holiday route leak

[Job Snijders]

Dear all,

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 04:06:24PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> If there are AS46844 folk listening around their eggnog ... it'd be
> nice if you would stop leaking prefixes: https://imgur.com/a/Js0YvP2
> 
> this from the current view at: https://bgp.he.net/AS15169#_graph6
> 
> I believe at least: 2620:0:1000::/40
> 
> was leaking around your noction filters.
>
> It is also possible that AS11878 should check their in/out filtering
> as well, since thats' the path I see in the he.net data...
> 
> thanks!
> -chris
> 
> it looks like this is a noction box doing some internal TE things and
> leaking around filters...though normally that appears as a subnet, not
> an exact route match, so perhaps not this time?

Can anyone offer ground-truth confirmation that the Noction IRP software
actually supports IPv6?

Kind regards,

Job

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 22:24, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to 
> cell tower handoffs when moving.  It's fine when you're
> stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from
> one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping
> and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP
> address every time.

Well, that's doubly true for VoWiFi hand-off to GSM and back. And the
MNO's are working hard to offload their network requirements to you.
Figures :-\...


>
> If we solve the issue of endpoint identity on a connection
> independent of the transport, so that your video stream 
> of the game doesn't have to stop and restart every time
> you shift from one access point to the next, I could 
> definitely see wi-Fi beating 5G.

To be honest, I don't know anyone born in the 2000's who cares about
hand-off. Do they even know what it is?


>
> Otherwise, I think 5G will win, in terms of better
> user experience when non-stationary.

Wi-fi is typically used in a stationery setting. I don't know anyone
that expects seamless wi-fi hand-off when on the move.

In other words, the kids born in the 2000's want to find a spot with
wi-fi and never leave it unless the earth was caving in. No amount of 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 or 10G would convince a kid born in the 2000's that wi-fi is
evil.

Why do the MNO's, BizDev and analyst folk care about the kids born in
the 2000's? Well...

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Matthew Petach]

Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to
cell tower handoffs when moving.  It's fine when you're
stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from
one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping
and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP
address every time.

If we solve the issue of endpoint identity on a connection
independent of the transport, so that your video stream
of the game doesn't have to stop and restart every time
you shift from one access point to the next, I could
definitely see wi-Fi beating 5G.

Otherwise, I think 5G will win, in terms of better
user experience when non-stationary.

Matt


On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 30/Dec/19 16:50, Shane Ronan wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> > or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard
> > time living without it.
>
> Which you can certainly achieve over wi-fi without hassle. I posit that
> in many locations where abundant bandwidth to your phone is required, a
> vast majority of suitable wi-fi options exist, and you (and others) use
> one or more of them.
>
> Wi-fi will beat 5G, over the long term.
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 22:14, Shane Ronan wrote:

>
> Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency and
> support for UE desification, just to name a few.

And the 802.11ac in my house, office, and down by the bar struggles with
this, because...?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 22:10, Shane Ronan wrote:

>
> And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national
> WiFi roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.

You mean the kids still use their phones to actually talk?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Matt Hoppes]

What are the other benefits of 5G?   My 4G/LTE works when I go behind 
things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits 
which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.


On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing 
out on many of the other benefits.


And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi 
roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.


Shane

Re: Hulu contact for a blacklisted IP

[Mike Hammett]

http://thebrotherswisp.com/index.php/geo-and-vpn/ 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Chris Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 2:12:50 PM 
Subject: Hulu contact for a blacklisted IP 



It looks like our NAT public IP has been blacklisted by Hulu. Does anyone have 
a contact to aid in fixing this? 

Chris Hudson 
Hudson Technology Solutions, Inc. 
10319 N 2410 Rd 
Weatherford, OK 73096 
Office: 580-772-2224 
Cell: 580-774-9579 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

Verizon has already proven in 5 cities that you can run fiber to the node
and provide 1G fixed wireless service to both single and multi family
homes. This reduces the fiber cost and the headache of dealing with
landlords in MDU's.

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or
need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time
living without it.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:24 AM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will
> build it with their broadband connection?
>
> With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be
> within. Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the
> home?
> Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?

Re: Iran cuts 95% of Internet traffic

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG]

Karl Auer  writes:

> I think the point about email is that it is inherently store-and-
> forward, so it can relatively easily be moved off a network, stored,
> moved by other means, and put back on a (possibly different) network.

It's trivial to set up a mail transport between physically separate
networks using a pair of PCs with modems and local network connections.
They don't have to be fancy, either - a tiny Unix installation with SMTP
and UUCP is all it takes.  I've done it with Minix on a 286 box.  Today,
I guess a Raspberry Pi with a USB modem might be chosen, or a laptop
that could be hooked up to open WiFi networks to do the SMTP side from
somewhere other than its operator's home.

To avoid the modem link, you'd need some safe way to transport e.g. a
USB memory stick with the mail spool on it between participating hosts.

-tih
-- 
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance
of Lisp.  Lisp is the most important idea in computer science.  --Alan Kay

Re: Iran cuts 95% of Internet traffic

[Ahmed Elbornou]

Maybe one day we'll see Ham-SD-Radio P2P News and Files Sharing economy.

:)

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:14 AM Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

>
> And this is why, despite all the disdainful remarks labeling such
> things as "antiquated", mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups are vastly
> superior to web sites/message boards/et.al. when it comes to facilitating
> many-to-many communications between people.  Why?  Well, there are many
> reasons, but one of the applicable ones in this use case is that their
> queues can be written to media, physically transported in/out, and then
> injected either into an internal or external network seamlessly modulo the
> time delay.  And because the computing resources required to handle this
> are in any laptop or desktop made in the last decade, probably earlier.
>
> If you're trying to get information in/out of a society that is raising
> network barriers to realtime communication, then you need methods that
> don't rely on a network and aren't realtime.
>
> ---rsk
>
>

-- 

Ahmed Elbornou
about.me/amaged

RE: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[rylandkremeier]

Could go through Level3, or CenturyLink now I guess. We received a /24 a few 
weeks ago from CenturyLink without much hassle. Not sure what you're at 
network-wise so there may be a step in-between but it's something to look into. 
 Original message From: Terrance Devor  
Date: 12/28/19  7:35 AM  (GMT-06:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Requesting 
/24 from ARIN Hello Everyone,I know we are very late in the game however, I 
need the community's help. As our company continues to grow and establish long 
term relationships and bringing additional customers onto our infrastructure, 
we find ourselves desperately needing to reserve a /24.I understand that IPv4 
addresses are getting depleted as of 2015, can someone on here please guide us 
on how to best secure /24?Thank You in Advance,Terrance 

Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[Jorge Santiago]

Go to ARIN and request the block. We just received ours after getting on
their waiting list. Took about 6 months, though.

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:57 AM Terrance Devor  wrote:

> Thank You Matt! Can we please connect directly off the list to limit the
> noise? I would really appreciate a setup-by-step.
>
> Best,
>
> Terrance
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> Request it. We just got a /22 direct from ARIN yesterday.
>>
>> There is currently a supply of IPs available from ARIN.
>>
>> Otherwise your option is to buy at auction at a high expense.
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Terrance Devor 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello Everyone,
>> >
>> > I know we are very late in the game however, I need the community's
>> help. As our company continues to grow and establish long term
>> relationships and bringing additional customers onto our infrastructure, we
>> find ourselves desperately needing to reserve a /24.
>> >
>> > I understand that IPv4 addresses are getting depleted as of 2015, can
>> someone on here please guide us on how to best secure /24?
>> >
>> > Thank You in Advance,
>> >
>> > Terrance
>>
>

Re: power to the internet

[Howard Leadmon]

  Isn't that what the Tesla Power Wall's are?   I thought that was the 
fill measure for when the solar panels aren't generating.   I have never 
gotten anything, but know when you look on their site for Solar, they 
try and pitch the batter power walls to run your house for days if needed..



---
Howard Leadmon
PBW Communications, LLC
http://www.pbwcomm.com

On 12/26/2019 2:08 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:

I just looked up Telsa's battery packs and they seem to be between
60-100kwh. Our daily use is about 30kwh in the fall, so it's only 2-3
days. Admittedly we can turn off the hot tub, water heater, etc to
stretch it out. And of course, that means that you can't drive it... The
one thing that would be for everybody's good is using them during peak
hours. If you work normal hours, then that only gets part of the peak
load, unfortunately.

Just buy three of them.  Two to leave in the garage as a "mobile battery pack" 
and one to drive around.

All problems solved.

Hulu contact for a blacklisted IP

[Chris Hudson]

It looks like our NAT public IP has been blacklisted by Hulu. Does anyone
have a contact to aid in fixing this?

 

Chris Hudson

Hudson Technology Solutions, Inc.

10319 N 2410 Rd

Weatherford, OK 73096

Office: 580-772-2224

Cell: 580-774-9579

 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 16:50, Shane Ronan wrote:

>
> Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
> or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard
> time living without it.

Which you can certainly achieve over wi-fi without hassle. I posit that
in many locations where abundant bandwidth to your phone is required, a
vast majority of suitable wi-fi options exist, and you (and others) use
one or more of them.

Wi-fi will beat 5G, over the long term.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 16:40, jdambro...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ultimately this will come down to market demand.  

I think this will largely be driven by the business case as the MNO's
see it.

If there is anyone complaining about 4G/LTE, please raise your hand.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 30/Dec/19 16:23, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will 
> build it with their broadband connection?

My point exactly.

It's sneaky and, well, genius, at the same time.


>
> With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. 
> Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home?

My point exactly.

IMHO, 5G development didn't take into account the pervasiveness of fibre
to the business, and the home.

> Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?.

As Sean Connery's character said to Catherine Zeta-Jones' one in
"Entrapment":

    "What can you do with seven billion that you can't do with four?"

Mark.

Re: Iran cuts 95% of Internet traffic

[Paul Nash]

This was (not quite) how bits of sub-saharan Africa got netnews in the early 
days.  Store-and-forward, UUCP links over dial-ups, and the occasional mag tape 
couriered over.

paul

> On Dec 29, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
> 
> And this is why, despite all the disdainful remarks labeling such
> things as "antiquated", mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups are vastly
> superior to web sites/message boards/et.al. when it comes to facilitating
> many-to-many communications between people.  Why?  Well, there are many
> reasons, but one of the applicable ones in this use case is that their
> queues can be written to media, physically transported in/out, and then
> injected either into an internal or external network seamlessly modulo the
> time delay.  And because the computing resources required to handle this
> are in any laptop or desktop made in the last decade, probably earlier.
> 
> If you're trying to get information in/out of a society that is raising
> network barriers to realtime communication, then you need methods that
> don't rely on a network and aren't realtime.
> 
> ---rsk
> 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:42 AM  wrote:

>
> Ultimately, market demand showed that it was necessary and we had done the
> right thing
> developing the next speed.
>

In other words, this will be up to the marketing teams.

$MAJOR_CELL_CARRIER will start advertising that they are the only all-5G
all-digital nation-wide network, built from the ground up...whereas
$COMPETITOR uses some obviously inferior tin-can-and-string type setup that
can't even pass bits in most places--and they'll have handy maps to prove
it.  They'll gain some market share and $COMPETITOR will start scrambling
to upgrade their network so their own maps look better and launch campaigns
and lawsuits to combat the false information put out by
$MAJOR_CELL_CARRIER.  In the end, consumers will only care that there's one
particular spot in there house where they can't get a signal and it's
really annoying because that's where they like to be when they talk on the
phone.

-A

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[jdambrosia]

Ultimately this will come down to market demand.  

Having led two efforts in IEEE to develop a next speed of Ethernet - I have
heard the argument about needing the next speed of Ethernet.  Ultimately,
market demand showed that it was necessary and we had done the right thing
developing the next speed.

So given the cost of deployment - will the business case to deploy 5G
happen?  Had lots of conversations with people on this.  Would like to
better understand this as we start to look beyond 400GbE - as bandwidth
related to 5G is frequently brought up.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 9:24 AM
To: Mark Tinka 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor

We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will
build it with their broadband connection?

With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within.
Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home?
Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Matt Hoppes]

We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will build 
it with their broadband connection?

With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. 
Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home?
Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?