Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade... and has never updated it, cause it's good enough. This is more likely the root cause of this particular problemŠyou see a lot of crufty old access points in the big chains, at least in hotels that bought into wifi in the late 90's or early 2000's. These things are not optimized to their environments, and the environments they have to work in are pretty sucky for el-cheapo 2.4GHz radios to work in. I'm a Marriott fan, having spent at least 150 nights a year in the past three years under their sheets, and their Internet offerings range from pretty darned good (Marriott Alpharetta, newish, built in '08 or '09) to downright awful (Marriott IAD, I'm looking in your directionŠ) The correlation between downright awful and installed early on in the cycle is strong. Like others mention, I carry around a lightweight, portable, doesn't-take-up-much-space, was-ridiculously-cheap-at-a-Target-in-Chicago access point that I use when hotel wifi isn't up to snuff (Residence Inn North Loop, I'm looking in your directionŠ) -- it's cheap and easy and lets me get MLB TV on the iPad while on the road with little interruption. The point, which I've wandered away from a bit, is that a lot of these chains probably have put the wifi and network infrastructure on a ten year amortization schedule, and it's only recently wound down to $0. Hopefully that means they're going to start investing in new kit and generally improving stuff. My .02c-worth, -c On 26-02-2013 11:03 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ quoting me ] Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse: The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade... and has never updated it, cause it's good enough. Cheers, -- jr 'sorry to hijack your post to quote myself, Owen' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
The reason is Hilton outsources it to ATT. They don't build the networks for performance in my experience. I have started to avoid some hotels that moved from level3 to ATT for their Internet providers as they are very slow at peak times. Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. Not sure why they deliver such poor service on their wifi products. When talking to their support they always cite extraordinary usage. Jared Mauch On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/27/13 6:26 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: The reason is Hilton outsources it to ATT. They don't build the networks for performance in my experience. I have started to avoid some hotels that moved from level3 to ATT for their Internet providers as they are very slow at peak times. Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. These manangement companies have been minimizing their cap/opex from fall 2007 through the end of 2011. They're still not spending on stuff unless it reduces their cost. Not sure why they deliver such poor service on their wifi products. When talking to their support they always cite extraordinary usage. Jared Mauch On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. I see that assertion a lot, and I want to correct it. The major cost, MRC, is *the router port*; I don't know what the 95%ile BW for a major hotel is going to be over a month, but I suspect that you're gonna need the whole 1Gb/s worth of port to handle the peaks. And those aren't exactly cheap -- though, by daily commercial hotel revenue standards, I suppose they're not *that* expensive; what kind of margins do hotels make? Actually, local loop usually exceeds router port. If you're at one of the data centers where we have presence, I can sell you a dual-stack Gig for $1/Mbps. OTOH, getting a Gig-E to the datacenter from the hotel and then the additional cost of the XC are probably more than $1,000/month when combined. Possibly by some multiplier ≥2. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 27 February 2013 11:47, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. I see that assertion a lot, and I want to correct it. The major cost, MRC, is *the router port*; I don't know what the 95%ile BW for a major hotel is going to be over a month, but I suspect that you're gonna need the whole 1Gb/s worth of port to handle the peaks. And those aren't exactly cheap -- though, by daily commercial hotel revenue standards, I suppose they're not *that* expensive; what kind of margins do hotels make? Actually, local loop usually exceeds router port. If you're at one of the data centers where we have presence, I can sell you a dual-stack Gig for $1/Mbps. OTOH, getting a Gig-E to the datacenter from the hotel and then the additional cost of the XC are probably more than $1,000/month when combined. Possibly by some multiplier ≥2. Owen I'm not sure how you've arrived at such an assertion. I thought 20$/mo (or even below) was more like the cost of an FTTU pipe; lighting at dedicated GigE would probably bring it higher, but (prior to XC) the cost should still be comparable. Also, how about microwave links? Webpass.net seems to have some nice offerings for residential buildings in SF Bay; it would seem like their technology might be perfect for the hotel sector, too. Also, even at $2,000/month -- wouldn't this still be several times cheaper than what they pay for newspaper delivery to every room? Oh, I get it, business people require their morning newspaper, but inet, ehh -- only the kids need the internet! C.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes: N on 5Ghz takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the 5Ghz channel where A merely replicated G on 5Ghz for all practical purposes. You have that backwards, actually, but the legacy support in 802.11g for 802.11b clients does represent a performance hit even in the absence of b-only clients, so claiming that a and g are equivalent is only true on paper. -r (802.11a user before 802.11g, still love the relatively unoccupied 5 ghz spectrum)
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Perhaps I don't understand.. Generally in wireless we look at two things; bits to hertz and noise components. If the noise is LESS and the carrier is the same power spectral density, you will have a greater c/n. I've always wondered why wifi didn't implement an array of modcods which can be used with a given system. That way, when you attenuate you have lower efficiency modulation and coding which will allow you to deal with fades better. Maybe they do us it and I'm just not hip to 802.11? From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com Date: 02/26/2013 3:40 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com Cc: Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com,NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes: N on 5Ghz takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the 5Ghz channel where A merely replicated G on 5Ghz for all practical purposes. You have that backwards, actually, but the legacy support in 802.11g for 802.11b clients does represent a performance hit even in the absence of b-only clients, so claiming that a and g are equivalent is only true on paper. -r (802.11a user before 802.11g, still love the relatively unoccupied 5 ghz spectrum)
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 26/02/13 17:19, Warren Bailey wrote: Perhaps I don't understand.. Generally in wireless we look at two things; bits to hertz and noise components. If the noise is LESS and the carrier is the same power spectral density, you will have a greater c/n. I've always wondered why wifi didn't implement an array of modcods which can be used with a given system. That way, when you attenuate you have lower efficiency modulation and coding which will allow you to deal with fades better. Maybe they do us it and I'm just not hip to 802.11? They do it, all right, and much, much more, including MIMO -- 802.11 has evolved into something only marginally less complex than the mobile phone wireless stack in the process. -- N.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 02/09/2013 07:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. For many reasons: - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) - a hotel room is (should be) used for sleeping, having sex, watching the tv idly, not for work (except emergencies and the likes), even when you're on a work trip. Use an actual office for work. - such internet connectivity doesn't exist to begin with for the average consumer in the USA Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of the net. Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 4.2 Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 22:33:45 UTC Location: Gulf of Alaska Latitude: 59.6203; Longitude: -142.6829 Depth: 1.00 km
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :) pgp_nmdk5jzCn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
- Original Message - From: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) It is like hell. It is very often not one paid, but *unreasonably* expensive ($5-10 a *day*). If you don't know this, it's because you either 1) never looked, 2) were always in hotels on group rates where free access was negotiated in the contract or 3) were very very lucky. Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of the net. One word: Conventions. No, it really *isn't* acceptable for a hotel not to have decent connectivity these days; would you tolerate a hotel where the power went out from 8-midnight every day? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
- Original Message - From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :) Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. Plus they have more corporate inertia in actually getting it done. Or, they just don't care. They don't have to. They're... oh, nevermind. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
--- On Tue, 2/26/13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network To: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 6:30 PM On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :) ...sure they can but don't want to because *customers* will still come! Motel 6 on the otherhand, does not have that cachet and have to try-harder! Just Economics; nothing personal...;-) ./Randy
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: On 02/09/2013 07:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. For many reasons: - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) This argument fails when compared to my real world observations. In general, my experience has been that the hotels that offer wifi as a free amenity have relatively uncomplicated systems, you get a password (if one is required at all) when you check in or when you ask for it and it just works. In contrast, the more expensive hotels that charge have elaborate systems designed to make sure they can capture that revenue and that nobody gets on without paying. These systems are often poorly implemented, poorly managed and extremely prone to various forms of failure resulting in a loss of connectivity. The people at the other end of the phone when one calls about such problems tend to think nothing of rebooting WAPs, etc. in order to try and shotgun the user's problem, creating a multitude of additional failures for all the other users. - a hotel room is (should be) used for sleeping, having sex, watching the tv idly, not for work (except emergencies and the likes), even when you're on a work trip. Use an actual office for work. This is a rather arrogant value judgment for you to think that you have a right to inflict on everyone else. - such internet connectivity doesn't exist to begin with for the average consumer in the USA I'm not sure I go quite that far, but, yes, it is not uncommon for people to have less than this level of connectivity in their residential environments in the US. Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of the net. Yet my experience has been that to a large extent, the reverse is true. I am more likely to get better internet connectivity from a low-budget tourist motel in a tourist area than from a business hotel in a business area. Hilton owned properties are among the worst in this respect and my recent experience at the Hilton LAX has confirmed that they haven't gotten any better. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Clearly a person making a comment about high speed Internet not being important in hotel rooms has not tried to stream the type of entertainment generally viewed in a hotel room. You view a movie that buffers every 10 seconds, it has a fantastic way of killing the moment.. ;) From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Date: 02/26/2013 6:47 PM (GMT-08:00) To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network - Original Message - From: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) It is like hell. It is very often not one paid, but *unreasonably* expensive ($5-10 a *day*). If you don't know this, it's because you either 1) never looked, 2) were always in hotels on group rates where free access was negotiated in the contract or 3) were very very lucky. Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of the net. One word: Conventions. No, it really *isn't* acceptable for a hotel not to have decent connectivity these days; would you tolerate a hotel where the power went out from 8-midnight every day? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
And the fact that a motel 6 is generally owned by a private owner, versus big box chains that are massively corporate. As Internet is free, it's a it a concern to them. The little guy has to Try harder, which leads to generally a better service. From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network. Original message From: Randy randy_94...@yahoo.com Date: 02/26/2013 6:56 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net,valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network --- On Tue, 2/26/13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network To: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 6:30 PM On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :) ...sure they can but don't want to because *customers* will still come! Motel 6 on the otherhand, does not have that cachet and have to try-harder! Just Economics; nothing personal...;-) ./Randy
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 26, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said: Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :) Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. Some also have wifi, some have wifi in the room from the DSL modem, but in most cases, these have been among the best functioning solutions in some of the larger properties. Plus they have more corporate inertia in actually getting it done. Hyatt does a consistently better job of this than Hilton in my experience. Same with Motel 6. I would expect them to have roughly equivalent corporate inertia. Or, they just don't care. They don't have to. They're... oh, never mind. I think this is the larger factor, yes. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ quoting me ] Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse: The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade... and has never updated it, cause it's good enough. Cheers, -- jr 'sorry to hijack your post to quote myself, Owen' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/26/2013 10:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. Some also have wifi, some have wifi in the room from the DSL modem, but in most cases, these have been among the best functioning solutions in some of the larger properties. While other more brain-dead properties are streaming their TV content over wireless (have seen this more than once)... Jeff
RE: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. ...or more likely (at least in my own probably limited experience), a CMTS and cable modems instead of a DSLAM and DSL modems. Probably because so many of these hotels have an existing digital PBX system that drives all the phones in the rooms which isn't going to take very kindly to sharing its copper with a DSLAM, and because they already have coax run throughout the place to drive the televisions. Easier to share the existing coax with a CMTS than it is to stretch a bunch of new telephone wire dedicated just to DSL; I mean, at that point, you might as well just pull some Ethernet. -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nath...@fsr.com
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 26 February 2013 20:03, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com [ quoting me ] Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse: The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade... and has never updated it, cause it's good enough. Brand new Hyatt Place in NorCal, less than 2 years old, Fast Ethernet in every room: This is a smokeping of their SureWest (ADSL or FFTH) connection, all within NorCal, ~20ms latency on a good millisecond: http://www.dslreports.com/r3/smokeping.cgi?target=network.9b37669cada3f00d348b647453067844.CA1 (half-second latency is common, above 1s latency is not unheard of) This is a smokeping of their ATT (T1?), which seems to be only marginally better, but on a good millisecond, it's only 10ms: http://www.dslreports.com/r3/smokeping.cgi?target=network.bb79d93501996d88968e851234250c6a.CA1 Time on the graph is in dslr timezone (ET), not in hotel's time (PT), but the trends are pretty obvious. Now. Good luck typing and then editing that that rm -rf in your ssh! Or picking up that conference call through a VPN. C.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com wrote: In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. ...or more likely (at least in my own probably limited experience), a CMTS and cable modems instead of a DSLAM and DSL modems. Probably because so many of these hotels have an existing digital PBX system that drives all the phones in the rooms which isn't going to take very kindly to sharing its copper with a DSLAM, and because they already have coax run throughout the place to drive the televisions. Easier to share the existing coax with a CMTS than it is to stretch a bunch of new telephone wire dedicated just to DSL; I mean, at that point, you might as well just pull some Ethernet. I haven't encountered many CMTS-based systems in hotels where I've stayed (and I stay in quite a few every year). In most cases, the digital phone system uses 1 pair of the 2-pair wiring and the DSL modem uses the other pair. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
I should probably know this, but doesn't N just spread better and have the
ability to send receive on multiple polarizations? As an RF engineer I should
probably know this, but I can't think of many people in my industry who really
care about 802.11_. I really don't even use wireless in my house, though it's
generally due to overcrowding the spectrum in populous areas.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: 02/25/2013 8:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
N has a number of advantages… Better spread, the ability to take advantage of
polarization, better use of MIMO, and IIRC, a better encoding scheme that
allows denser constellation points (more bits per signaling element).
N on 5Ghz takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the 5Ghz channel where
A merely replicated G on 5Ghz for all practical purposes.
Owen
On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:
I should probably know this, but doesn't N just spread better and have the
ability to send receive on multiple polarizations? As an RF engineer I should
probably know this, but I can't think of many people in my industry who
really care about 802.11_. I really don't even use wireless in my house,
though it's generally due to overcrowding the spectrum in populous areas.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: 02/25/2013 8:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than
G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
If you want to see something pretty amazing, check this out..
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/twisting-signals-vortex-researchers-beam-25-terabits-data-second
These guys got close to 100 bits/hz using Orbital Angular Momentum in addition
to the normal Spin Angular Momentum. There is a picture out there of the I/Q
showing the constellation, which to me looks like the future of communications
systems. In my world, if you could offer 5 bits/hz or higher you would very
likely be able to retire on your own island. Space segment for satellite
systems can cost as much as 175k for 36MHz, so giving someone a 20x bandwidth
increase would be an absolute game changer. Don't be surprised if you see the
802.11 guys trying to figure out how to make OAM work, it would essentially
solve the worlds bandwidth problems at nearly all frequencies.
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:56:05 -0800
To: User
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.commailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
Cc: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.commailto:frnk...@iname.com, NANOG
nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
N has a number of advantages… Better spread, the ability to take advantage of
polarization, better use of MIMO, and IIRC, a better encoding scheme that
allows denser constellation points (more bits per signaling element).
N on 5Ghz takes advantage of the increased bandwidth of the 5Ghz channel where
A merely replicated G on 5Ghz for all practical purposes.
Owen
On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Warren Bailey
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.commailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com
wrote:
I should probably know this, but doesn't N just spread better and have the
ability to send receive on multiple polarizations? As an RF engineer I should
probably know this, but I can't think of many people in my industry who really
care about 802.11_. I really don't even use wireless in my house, though it's
generally due to overcrowding the spectrum in populous areas.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com
Date: 02/25/2013 8:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.commailto:frnk...@iname.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk
frnk...@iname.commailto:frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth
j...@baylink.commailto:j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.aumailto:sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/25/13 8:42 AM, Warren Bailey wrote:
I should probably know this, but doesn't N just spread better and have the
ability to send receive on multiple polarizations?
That would be a rather extreme over-simplifcation of
spatial-division-multiplexing and space-time-coding.
As an RF engineer I should probably know this, but I can't think of many
people in my industry who really care about 802.11_. I really don't even use
wireless in my house, though it's generally due to overcrowding the spectrum in
populous areas.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Date: 02/25/2013 8:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
RE: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
There's only 83.5 MHz to work with at 2.4 GHz, while in most countries you
have at least two hundred MHz in the 5 GHz range
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII). So if you choose to have 40 MHz
channels for increased throughput, you can have many more (non-overlapping
ones) at 5 GHz than 2.4 GHz, increasing Mbps/area.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Correct. However, while A is 5Ghz (only), it's not significantly better than
G.
The true performance gains come from 5Ghz and N together. N on 2.4Ghz has
limited benefit over G. N on 5Ghz is significantly better.
Owen
On Feb 24, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical,
but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago
and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks
A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency
congestion
with other uses.
Owen
RE: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
The IEEE 802.11n standards do not require 5 GHz support. It's typical, but
not necessary.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Jay Ashworth
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G,
though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 21:12 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. 5Ghz penetrates things like stucco and concrete better than 2.4. OTOH, 2.4 gets through trees My empirical experience with 5GHz says it penetrates concrete a lot less than 2.4. For instance, in one building I was in, 5GHz didn't penetrate the floor so it was only available on the same floor as the AP, but 2.4 GHz worked well both on the floor above and below the AP. This was in a building with quite thick concrete floor, a 3 story town house with the AP placed on the middle. The floor isn't just concrete. Many industrial floors include solid steel plating in the floor. 5 Ghz will not penetrate that and neither will 2.4 (at least not very well). A town house is also likely to have some form of metal plating (or at least a very high concentration of rebar) in the concrete between floors as well, so, I suspect your issue was the metal, not the concrete. 2.4Ghz probably found a path around the outside of the building and back in. 5Ghz once it starts in a direction tends to continue in that direction. It doesn't bounce or curve well at all. 2.4Ghz tends to do better at that, creating the illusion of lesser attenuation. As I said, attenuation is an oversimplification. RF path identification and multipath can get very complex very quickly. In my current apartment, I moved my AP out of the clothes closet (fairly thin light concrete (don't know what it's called) and put it on the wall in my hallway, this increased performance on 5GHz substantially. So I'd like to know where you got your information from because I'd like to read up more because my experience says exactly the opposite. Without knowing the details of the makeup of the walls in your closet, I have to say that seems a bit odd to me. Perhaps there is another explanation. The reason 5Ghz penetrates stucco better, for example is that the 23cm wavelength is more than 4x the size of the openings in most of the chicken wire used to adhere stucco to walls. The 12cm wavelength of 5Ghz, OTOH, goes through quite nicely. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: The reason 5Ghz penetrates stucco better, for example is that the 23cm wavelength is more than 4x the size of the openings in most of the chicken wire used to adhere stucco to walls. The 12cm wavelength of 5Ghz, OTOH, goes through quite nicely. http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/05)_GPS_Timing/E10589_Propagation_Losses_2_and_5GHz.pdf Aside from large cement blocks and red bricks that displayed somewhat more loss at 5 GHz than at 2.4 GHz (Table 3), losses for all other materials tested were very much the same in both frequency regimes. Looking at their chart on page 9, I see substantially higher attenuation for cinder blocks, 5% lower attenuation with stucco, and 3x attenuation through red bricks. If concrete (10cm think or even more) is similar to red bricks in attenuation, then that would explain the behaviour I have observed in real life. The only material that 5GHz had a lot lower attenuation with was diamond mesh. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/18/13 1:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 17, 2013, at 21:12 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. Along some dimensions sure, e.g. we have quite a lot of parameters we can fiddle with. With respect to an istropic raditor and the same power level it is not. It's about 6-7dB depending on which end of the bands we're comparing - e.g. friis trasmission equation.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 18, 2013, at 3:07 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/18/13 1:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Feb 17, 2013, at 21:12 , Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. Along some dimensions sure, e.g. we have quite a lot of parameters we can fiddle with. With respect to an istropic raditor and the same power level it is not. It's about 6-7dB depending on which end of the bands we're comparing - e.g. friis trasmission equation. Show me a wifi access point for 802.11n that uses an isotropic radiator and I'll consider that more relevant. (Yes, I'm aware that an isotropic radiator is useful as a baseline comparison because it eliminates antenna issues, near-field/far field issues, and a host of other complications. However, the purpose of an isotropic radiator is, at its core, the very definition of oversimplification because it is a theoretical antenna which removes all of the real world complexities. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever actually built an isotropic radiator, though there are a couple of very complex antennas that come a little closer than a ¼ wave whip.) Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.comwrote: And at least in the US, I'm yet to encounter a complementary WiFi at any hotel that would be doing JavaScript insertion, so I'm not sure where you get your information that the free internet always means ads or a very high level of tampering. They exist, although they are rare. eg, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/courtyard-marriott-wifi/ (This particular hotel apparently stopped shortly after this news broke) On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote: A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea. Might improve some things, but not the really important ones. The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means is close to zero. VPN connections are obviously common, but are becoming fewer and fewer by the day - especially non-split tunnel VPN. An on-site transparent proxy(with or without cache) will improve performance to at least some extent, if only because it's isolating the issues of the local network (potentially congested wifi in an environment that really isn't designed for good wifi coverage!) from the upstream. It's far better (and quicker) to handle a dropped packet between the client and the proxy than between the client and the webserver. From personal experience (around a dozen different hotels this year already) the best thing you can to do improve performance is to avoid Wifi and revert to a wired connection - or if you really want a wireless connection take your own travel wifi router and connect it via a wired connection. The performance difference in many hotels is significant, showing that the problem is often less the hotels Internet connection, and more their wifi. As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected 122 AP's... Scott.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/17/13 8:33 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
The crapy facebook games that everyone plays are both latency senstive
and unhappy when their connections are reset. zynga poker peaked at
something like 38 million players (per wikipedia)
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
Cheers,
-- jra
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for
work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea.
Might improve some things, but not the really important ones.
The chances of the average hotel wifi user even knowing what SSH means
is close to zero.
{{citation-needed}}
As an aside, I was sitting in JFK airport (terminal 4) a few days ago and
having a shocking time getting a good internet connection - even from my
own Mifi. I fired up inSSIDer, and within a few seconds it had detected
122 AP's...
Yup; B/G/N congestion is a real problem. Nice that the latest generation
of both mifi's and cellphones all seem to do A as well, in addition to
current-gen business laptops (my x61 is almost 5 years old, and speaks A).
I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G, though
you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion
with other uses.
Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
- Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G, though you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion with other uses. No, my ThinkPad doesn't *do* N, 5GHz or otherwise. Neither does my Sprint EVO, nor, as near as I can tell, the Galaxy S4 I'm going to replace it with this year (though on that one, I'm a tad less certain). I'd forgotten that N was dual band, though, yes. I can't say I've ever needed the extra bandwidth N provides, personally, though certainly the hotels we've been discussing might need more to share around. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/17/13 12:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G, though you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion with other uses. No, my ThinkPad doesn't *do* N, 5GHz or otherwise. Neither does my Sprint EVO, nor, as near as I can tell, the Galaxy S4 I'm going to replace it with this year (though on that one, I'm a tad less certain). I'd forgotten that N was dual band, though, yes. I can't say I've ever needed the extra bandwidth N provides, personally, though certainly the hotels we've been discussing might need more to share around. entirely orthonal to the frequency band used spatial division multipluxing as used by 802.11n is generally going to increase the SNR. so what you get out of A/N is: * more non-overlapping bands and therefore a much easier map coloring problem) * greater attentuation, which implies more limited range, but also less interferance. * with N-mimo higher SNR if you have = 2 antennas All of those things make the 5Ghz band a more attractive alternative for lots of applications. given that it's 5Ghz it also requires more power, which is a problem for cellphones, but not so much for tablets and laptops. Cheers, -- jra
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:17 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/17/13 12:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G, though you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion with other uses. No, my ThinkPad doesn't *do* N, 5GHz or otherwise. Neither does my Sprint EVO, nor, as near as I can tell, the Galaxy S4 I'm going to replace it with this year (though on that one, I'm a tad less certain). I'd forgotten that N was dual band, though, yes. I can't say I've ever needed the extra bandwidth N provides, personally, though certainly the hotels we've been discussing might need more to share around. entirely orthonal to the frequency band used spatial division multipluxing as used by 802.11n is generally going to increase the SNR. so what you get out of A/N is: * more non-overlapping bands and therefore a much easier map coloring problem) * greater attenuation, which implies more limited range, but also less interferance. Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. 5Ghz penetrates things like stucco and concrete better than 2.4. OTOH, 2.4 gets through trees and moist air better. In dry air and/or a vacuum, they're similar. Neither penetrates humans particularly well, though 5 tends to do slightly better. * with N-mimo higher SNR if you have = 2 antennas All of those things make the 5Ghz band a more attractive alternative for lots of applications. given that it's 5Ghz it also requires more power, which is a problem for cellphones, but not so much for tablets and laptops. OTOH, with 5Ghz, a high-gain antenna is ½ - ⅛ the size (depending on the type of antenna) the size of a 2.4Ghz which also has advantages in portable applications. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Feb 17, 2013, at 4:17 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/17/13 12:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com I think by A you actually mean 5Ghz N. A doesn't do much better than G, though you still have the advantage of wider channels and less frequency congestion with other uses. No, my ThinkPad doesn't *do* N, 5GHz or otherwise. Neither does my Sprint EVO, nor, as near as I can tell, the Galaxy S4 I'm going to replace it with this year (though on that one, I'm a tad less certain). I'd forgotten that N was dual band, though, yes. I can't say I've ever needed the extra bandwidth N provides, personally, though certainly the hotels we've been discussing might need more to share around. entirely orthonal to the frequency band used spatial division multipluxing as used by 802.11n is generally going to increase the SNR. so what you get out of A/N is: * more non-overlapping bands and therefore a much easier map coloring problem) * greater attenuation, which implies more limited range, but also less interferance. Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. 5Ghz penetrates things like stucco and concrete better than 2.4. OTOH, 2.4 gets through trees and moist air better. In dry air and/or a vacuum, they're similar. Neither penetrates humans particularly well, though 5 tends to do slightly better. * with N-mimo higher SNR if you have = 2 antennas All of those things make the 5Ghz band a more attractive alternative for lots of applications. given that it's 5Ghz it also requires more power, which is a problem for cellphones, but not so much for tablets and laptops. OTOH, with 5Ghz, a high-gain antenna is ½ - ⅛ the size (depending on the type of antenna) the size of a 2.4Ghz which also has advantages in portable applications. Sorry… Hit send prematurely… An important consideration: A good high-gain antenna helps you with transmit _AND_ receive. More power helps you with transmit. Owen
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: Greater attenuation is an oversimplification. 5Ghz penetrates things like stucco and concrete better than 2.4. OTOH, 2.4 gets through trees My empirical experience with 5GHz says it penetrates concrete a lot less than 2.4. For instance, in one building I was in, 5GHz didn't penetrate the floor so it was only available on the same floor as the AP, but 2.4 GHz worked well both on the floor above and below the AP. This was in a building with quite thick concrete floor, a 3 story town house with the AP placed on the middle. In my current apartment, I moved my AP out of the clothes closet (fairly thin light concrete (don't know what it's called) and put it on the wall in my hallway, this increased performance on 5GHz substantially. So I'd like to know where you got your information from because I'd like to read up more because my experience says exactly the opposite. Apart from that, 5GHz is great. More bandwidth, less crowded. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
MO == Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp writes: MO Internet connectivity (FTTH) Fibre-To-The-Hotel, eh? :) :) :) :) :) -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/11/13, Graham Donaldson gra...@airstripone.org.uk wrote: On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:55:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: I personally think you're being unreasonable on the bandwidth and latency expectations, Hotel Internet connections are there as a convenience rather than some kind of business grade connection. Hey, the name business grade connection is prejudiced, as if to imply, that only businesses get it. I think the expectation from a visitor, is only, that their internet experience will be comparable to their home cable/dsl internet. If it's not... that's fine, but they should provide disclosure of that, whenever mentioning the feature, before a reservation could be made. Of course there can be no worldwide standard, but there should be a standard, based on what is normal in the country. If the advertising tells you, that the room has electric lights, air conditioning, and cable tv; you don't want to see a room that just has a 9 volt battery, a little LED lamp, as your light source -- a portable battery powered fan. And a single shared television in the lobby, plugged into a cable provider that charges a per-minute fee to visitors wishing to see anything other than channel 3. Graham. -- -JH
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 9 February 2013 22:49, Keith Medcalf kmedc...@dessus.com wrote: Most of these networks are provided by Internet Marketing Companies. In exchange for free-reign in data harvesting and data capture/logging/tracking and advertisement/javascript insertion in web pages (etc), the hotel gets to offer free internet connections. Often the Hotel Internet is a profit center for the Hotel, the Internet Company paying the Hotel for unrestricted diddling rights to the unsuspecting guests traffic. Same applies to almost every business that offers free complimentary internet connections ... Occasionally you run into a Hotel that offers a quality and clean internet connection, however, these are few and far between ... Several 2.5* / 3* hotel managers I spoke with volunteered, implied or confirmed that they're paying on the order of 2k$/mo for internet in Northern California. And at least in the US, I'm yet to encounter a complementary WiFi at any hotel that would be doing JavaScript insertion, so I'm not sure where you get your information that the free internet always means ads or a very high level of tampering. One of my prior residential ISPs, Embarq, arguably did more tampering and data mining with my connection than any of the hotels I have ever stayed at. (I'm talking about DNS hijacking.) Now. Notice that these hotels are already paying 2k$/mo and getting 10Mbps, which residentially retails at 40$/mo. How much will 100Mbps cost them? What, still 2k/mo? What are they waiting for? Or, pardon my residential bias, but are some of them still using T1's? Don't those cost a fortune? Wouldn't they actually save their money by going elsewhere? I hear microwave links are pretty popular these days, and offer great bandwidth and latency. C. -Original Message- From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 09 February, 2013 23:23 To: Constantine A. Murenin Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups? Because they don't know any better and lack the technical clue on how to implement a network that can support a hotel-full (or half-full) of people... But i'm sure they all have their MCSEs and CCNAs so they are qualified :) -mike Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2013, at 19:57, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
When staying at Homestead a few years back, they would close my Internet connection, because I was downloading movies via peer to peer. It took me a while and escalating to a relatively competent network engineer to figure it out: Mate, I don't have any p2p software installed, may be my computer is hacked, tell me what traffic you see that triggers your system, so I can investigate. I came down that they did not like my Skype trying to re-establish connections with contacts in Asia/Pacific (where I lived then), instead of the USA. I also organized conferences, and putting more than 20 people (with various OS/hacked machines) on the same access point, is not standard operations as in a company, you need some experience with that, something that some ISPs (who were sponsoring the Internet) failed to understand. On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks. Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD. Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.) And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!). How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups? When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Best regards, Constantine.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: The problem here is that somehow someone at Hyatt decided that a regular low-end asymmetrical ~10Mbps/~1Mbps fibre-optic connection from SureWest could be shared (together with a lousy 1.5Mbps T1 from T) between 151 rooms, when almost every single person staying in the hotel has a connection at least twice as big back home, for their own unshared use! Isn't the logical reasoning simply unbelievable? I've tried calling their corporate office, but they, apparently, don't have any kind of a corporate standard for internet connectivity, saying that it's up to the individual hotels and the local conditions. Yes, that is reasonable. Just saying Internet connectivity is too broad for world wide hotel operators. It's up to the local conditions, of course!!! When I was at a resort in an isolated island in Pacific ocean three yeas ago, only connectivity of the resort was through satellite, shared by tens of rooms. There, of course, was no local 2G/3G/4G services. When I was at a hotel in Geneva about 10 years ago, the hotel advertised to be Internet-capable, even though the hotel only offered telephone connectivity to local and international dial-up ISPs. When I was at a resort in Africa more than 15 years ago, there was no telephone connectivity, except for one by private wireless relay maintained by the hotel for its reservation and other its own business purposes. Differentiating the Internet connectivity of hotels as: (No?) Internet connectivity (dial up) Internet connectivity (satellite) Internet connectivity (DSL) Internet connectivity (FTTH) could be meaningful, for which NANOG could act for or against it, but there can be no standard for Internet connectivity defined world wide, unless you accept 110bps dial up good enough. Masataka Ohta PS You can, of course, pay for private satellite connectivity at certain bps available world wide.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:55:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks. When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? If you don't like it, let them know, and stop providing them with your business. Money talks. They'll either decide they need to invest in good Internet, or they'll decide that for their customer demographic it just isn't worth it. I personally think you're being unreasonable on the bandwidth and latency expectations, Hotel Internet connections are there as a convenience rather than some kind of business grade connection. If you are expecting a top quality connection, expect to pay by the GB - so that greedy patrons watching Netflix HD pay for their bandwidth. Broken SSH connections would annoy me though. Graham.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel. The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running. -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:08:04 +0100 From: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel. The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running. And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ? The TLMC concept only has possible applications in certain residential settings. And even then it's very debatable as to how it could actually improve instead of overcomplicate and deteriorate the entire service along the route. Kind regards, JP Velders
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:07:49PM +0100 Quoting JP Velders (j...@veldersjes.net): Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel. And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ? A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea. Might improve some things, but not the really important ones. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Thousands of days of civilians ... have produced a ... feeling for the aesthetic modules -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel. The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running. And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ? Since when have you started to publish your sensitive corporate documents on public sites, cause that's what's needed for TLMC to cache your documents in the first place. Look, If a CSP (Content Service Provider - where you host your documents) does not want to have it's content cached, they don't need too. The cache server(s) at the ISP:s around the world will then _not_ be able to cache it. The traffic will in this case, will be loaded directly from the CSP. The TLMC concept only has possible applications in certain residential settings. No. It will help the ISP:s to distribute their loads in their network. And even then it's very debatable as to how it could actually improve instead of overcomplicate and deteriorate the entire service along the route. How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links... -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:33:04 +0100 From: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network Since when have you started to publish your sensitive corporate documents on public sites, cause that's what's needed for TLMC to cache your documents in the first place. You seem to be mistaken that any bandwidth issue will be remedied by TLMC. A significant number (well over the 50% mark I'd wager) will not be remedied. This thread was started over such a subject. The Apple TV cited as an example was an example. Travellers, be they corporate or leisure, have significant networking needs that the TLMC cannot address. Just think of The Cloud (yes, I'll go and flog myself for bringing it into a discussion on NANOG), where people are storing their (semi-) private documents or files - in the end it's similar to connecting back to the office to access the fileserver. How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links... And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ? If the concepts and technologies underlying The Internet were invented to have the same ubiquitous speed for all, I think it would have a fairly different design. Now if you're a content provider, then yes I can imagine why you'd like everybody else to pay for better ways to deliver your content without having to pay for it yourself. The examples you cite are the prime examples where users either bring their own entertainment, or it is already provided. On a long airplane flight it is quite uncommon to not have some offering with movies or audio, free or paid is outside scope since TLMC's won't be free either. After all, when I sleep or travel on the road my bandwidth use is vastly different from when at home, work or at a hotel. Within this discussion we're talking about the actual last mile. A proxy or cache won't be of any use if the users can't get to it with sufficient bandwidth to make it work anyway. Kind regards, JP Velders
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks. Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD. Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.) And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!). Network is rather far outside the core competency of most hotel manangement corporations and REITS assuming they have any at all. There's fairly abundant reasons reasons why they or their contractors might not be very good at it or be able to deliver a decent service at the pricepoint they have budgeted. When you consider the alternative is bringing your own (in the form of HSDPA/LTE) and that might in many cases be an order of magnitude faster, it's hard to imagine how most of them would address that in a fashion that generates in cost recovery on the service or pricing power on rooms. How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups? When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Best regards, Constantine.
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
You seem to be mistaken that any bandwidth issue will be remedied by TLMC. A significant number (well over the 50% mark I'd wager) will not be remedied. This thread was started over such a subject. And to save 1 - 5 Mbit/s of this bandwidth is wrong, how? The Apple TV cited as an example was an example. If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server. Travellers, be they corporate or leisure, have significant networking needs that the TLMC cannot address. Just think of The Cloud (yes, I'll go and flog myself for bringing it into a discussion on NANOG), where people are storing their (semi-) private documents or files - in the end it's similar to connecting back to the office to access the fileserver. (We have 1 - 5 Mbit/s of more bandwidth for these services). What you are talking about here is dynamic content, which should not be cached at all and everyone knows this. How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links... And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ? I'm not saying that they should have a cache server. I'm saying that they could. Now if you're a content provider, then yes I can imagine why you'd like everybody else to pay for better ways to deliver your content without having to pay for it yourself. It does matter how you are going to try to solve this, it is always the customer who is going to pay in the end. Within this discussion we're talking about the actual last mile. I call it The Last Mile Cache, TLMC A proxy or cache won't be of any use if the users can't get to it with sufficient bandwidth to make it work anyway. So, as long as a user does not have enough bandwidth, they should not have a cache server on their side, correct? -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
- Original Message - From: fredrik danerklint fredan-na...@fredan.se The Apple TV cited as an example was an example. If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server. Oh. *Now* I understand the problem. Do you really think that the content providers, and the delivery systems they purposefully choose for that, actually make that possible, much less practical? Even in your country, much less the countries of, um, North America? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Hello, The Apple TV cited as an example was an example. If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server. The question is how much it helps. Everyone can easily find that caching Google logo is possible, also some pictures from big media companies webs. Also some program updates may help. I'm not sure what will be cache hit ratio from YouTube (because of very log tail) or facebook pictures. Number of hotel guests is really limited. How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links... And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ? I'm not saying that they should have a cache server. I'm saying that they could. The question is: Is investment for buying TLMC and operation costs for TLMC profitable for the hotel? Seems to me like question: Is investment and operation costs for high bandwidth connection profitable for the hotel? The discussion is really about the hotel business, the best way for the community is to provide a feedback for hotel managers what is expected (for free and for the money). And, eventually, provide a kind of metric. What is really annoying, is when you pay for broken connection. Regards Michal
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
*Now* I understand the problem. Do you really think that the content providers, and the delivery systems they purposefully choose for that, actually make that possible, much less practical? (I'm not sure that I understand what you mean with that sentence). If you mean that a CSP already has an agreement with a CDN, why should they change it to something else since it works right now for them? If this is what you mean, yes the can add TLMC to their mix as well and continue with whatever they are using today for delivering their contents. Even in your country, much less the countries of, um, North America? I think that has more to do with the CSP since they are actual needed in the first place. After that it is the ISP, which in turns adds the possibility for a end-user/customer/residence to set-up their own cache server at home. Cheers, -- jra -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 10 February 2013 11:02, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks. Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD. Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.) And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!). Network is rather far outside the core competency of most hotel manangement corporations and REITS assuming they have any at all. There's fairly abundant reasons reasons why they or their contractors might not be very good at it or be able to deliver a decent service at the pricepoint they have budgeted. When you consider the alternative is bringing your own (in the form of HSDPA/LTE) and that might in many cases be an order of magnitude faster, it's hard to imagine how most of them would address that in a fashion that generates in cost recovery on the service or pricing power on rooms. Well, let's do a thought experiment on cost comparison to put things into perspective. * How much do they pay for the actual pipe? * How much do they pay for the outsourced maintenance and the technical support contract? (Tech support is outsourced to New York.) * How much do they pay to an average in-house employee? * How much do they pay to receive and deliver the newspapers in the mornings to at least half the rooms? (Potentially more than 2000 copies a month at just half the rooms.) And: * How much do they charge per night per room? Then times 151, then times 31? Something along the lines of 200'000$/mo to 600'000$/mo? Unless my guesstimates are wrong, even 100$/mo for the actual pipe is completely and utterly nothing compared to all the other expenses (and the revenue), and I think their 10Mbps down / 1Mbps up fibre-optic (or ADSL?) connection from SureWest Business is even cheaper than that (although their ATT T1 is probably not, but then it's still rather unclear why they even need to load-balance 151 rooms over a T1 in a brand-new building in a major metro area in California in 2013 anyways). Even at 500$/mo for the pipe it would still be SEVERAL TIMES cheaper than delivering the daily newspaper to every guest every morning alone. Even with just a couple of speed-related tech-support calls per month, it might still be cheaper to upgrade to a better pipe than to have the guests needing to call the support and being inconvenienced with even a very slight likelihood of not returning. Besides, why would leisure and business travellers need a complementary newspaper in the morning, but would be OK with 200ms average latency and 300ms std-dev / jitter, and not being able to watch YouTube, video conference or work remotely comfortably, is something that I'm yet to comprehend. Yet the local management of the hotel thinks that there's no problem. Internet works. It's been fixed. We've fixed your internet, sir -- the system has been rebooted; please check again in a few minutes. Yes, sir, some customers occasionally do complain that the video streaming doesn't work; but most people just check their email, and it works. Sir, I personally do have a 30Mbps connection at home, but here at our hotel 10Mbps (+ 1.5Mbps) is shared between 151 suites; what's your problem again, sir? I think it is honestly laughable that they must be spending about 3$/day (the price of coffee at some Starbucks locations) for their actual internet pipe
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups? Because they don't know any better and lack the technical clue on how to implement a network that can support a hotel-full (or half-full) of people... But i'm sure they all have their MCSEs and CCNAs so they are qualified :) -mike Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2013, at 19:57, Constantine A. Murenin muren...@gmail.com wrote: why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Not really. Best way to improve this would probably be to get the hotel booking sites to include a separate rating for the internet connectivity. Up until then, getting Internet connectivity into a hotel is either just cost (in case they offer it for free) or probably a badly performing profit center (because as soon as they try to charge their outrageous prices I imagine take up is abysmal). If a good performing hotel actually got better rating out of having bad connectivity, and a badly performing hotel got worse rating at rating sites, then I'd imagine that more emphasis would be put on this. *But* it also requires a standard test that people can run to understand if things are bad or good. For instance, my ISP guarantees to provide 50-100 megabit/s down and 7-10 up on my 100/10 home connection to a speed test site located on neutral ground here in Sweden. So if the hotels could market themselves with some kind of lowest speed guarantee according to some standard, I believe things would improve. Especially if hotels.com (and others) had a special search item for this, where you could do a search and it would only show results for hotels that guaranteed a certain speed. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
On 9 February 2013 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Not really. Best way to improve this would probably be to get the hotel booking sites to include a separate rating for the internet connectivity. Up until then, getting Internet connectivity into a hotel is either just cost (in case they offer it for free) or probably a badly performing profit center (because as soon as they try to charge their outrageous prices I imagine take up is abysmal). If a good performing hotel actually got better rating out of having bad connectivity, and a badly performing hotel got worse rating at rating sites, then I'd imagine that more emphasis would be put on this. *But* it also requires a standard test that people can run to understand if things are bad or good. For instance, my ISP guarantees to provide 50-100 megabit/s down and 7-10 up on my 100/10 home connection to a speed test site located on neutral ground here in Sweden. So if the hotels could market themselves with some kind of lowest speed guarantee according to some standard, I believe things would improve. Especially if hotels.com (and others) had a special search item for this, where you could do a search and it would only show results for hotels that guaranteed a certain speed. The problem here is that somehow someone at Hyatt decided that a regular low-end asymmetrical ~10Mbps/~1Mbps fibre-optic connection from SureWest could be shared (together with a lousy 1.5Mbps T1 from T) between 151 rooms, when almost every single person staying in the hotel has a connection at least twice as big back home, for their own unshared use! Isn't the logical reasoning simply unbelievable? I've tried calling their corporate office, but they, apparently, don't have any kind of a corporate standard for internet connectivity, saying that it's up to the individual hotels and the local conditions. How anyone could math out that an average single-digit Mbps asymmetrical connection can be shared with 151 rooms without any kind of service degradation or outright periodic halts is rather beyond me. Out of curiosity, I've tried going onto SureWestBusiness.com web-site to see what kind of offers they provide for businesses, only to find out that business FTTH connections max out at 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up! Yeap, in a major metro area, that's definitely an ILEC for you! Anyone from SureWest to comment how come residential fibre-optic connections can have 50Mbps/50Mbps, but businesses that share their connection with several hundred residents are limited to 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up max? Why do you even need to have fibre-optics for that kind of stone-age speeds? And I thought ATT FTTU was slow! C.
