Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin
At 01-05-2012 18:41, Hank Disuko wrote: Hi folks, I wonder if anyone can recommend a network diagram tool that can show realtime link utilization via snmp? Guess Observium is really up to your alley :) www.observium.org
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk wrote; Jay Ashworth wrote: Now, those codecs *are* specially tuned for spoken word -- if you try to stuff music down them, it's not gonna work very well at all... It was claimed to me many years ago that the 4kHz cutoff used in POTS serves women and children less well than it does adult males. I have never been aware that I have any greater problems understanding women or children on the phone than I do men, but my hearing is not great. I can't hear the difference between G.711 and G.729, for example, but some people can. Googling PCM adult male voice, 4kHz adult male and similar isn't finding me anything. Was I told nonsense? Probably. sort of. grin 'Way back when', at least in the U.S., the 'voice' passband was 300-3000Hz. Later, 300-3300Hz. For perspective, rf you know anything about music, the 'A' below Middle C' is nominally 440Hz. 300Hz is roughly an octave below Middle C, and 3kHz is 2-1/2 octaves above it. That's the -high- end of the range for a piccolo, or coloratura Soprano. Now, absent the overtones that give a note it's 'color', one of those high-pitch sources will sound more than a little bit 'tinny' over a classical 'voice passband' channel. *HOWEVER*, the 'fundamental' frequencies for womens/childrens voices -is- higher than that of adult males. But you're talking less than an octave in 'most' cases. Less than 2 in 'extreme' (a guy with a _deep- bass voice -- basso profundo, and a 'squeaky' female/child) cases. This mean that one does lose one to two additional 'overtones' of the fundamental on women/children, vs. men. This does, in general, *NOT* materially affect the 'intelligibility' of the voice, although it does have a measurable adverse effect on the 'identifiability' of one such higher-pitched voice vis-a-vis a different similarly-pitched voice. You lose more of the 'color' of their voices vs the lower-pitched male voice.
Peering in Brazil
Hi all, I have posted this to the LacNOG list but it seems pretty quite and it involves North America also, so I hope no one minds me reposting here also; I am looking for any guidance and advice people have regarding first time peerings in South America. Currently I am doing some work with a content provider in North America and I want to get them better routers into South America, to South American ISPs. I am looking to get them an interconnect from their NA location to SA, into a PTT IX location in Sao Paulo (they seem to be up there for top IXs in SA, or am I mistaken?). I'm new to the PTT IXs so does anyone have any recommendations about any aspect here, support horror stories, reason to prefer one location for peering over another etc? I see Level3 are in the PTT Sao Paulo location, and we have access to Level 3 already. Is there someone else I should be looking at who is especially good at private routes down to SA, enough to digress from Level 3, or are Level 3 a good choice here? Again, any past experiences are welcome, and recommendations for a different IX or provider any why. Many thanks, James.
Re: [lacnog] Peering in Brazil
I am looking for any guidance and advice people have regarding first time peerings in South America. Currently I am doing some work with a content provider in North America and I want to get them better routers into South America, to South American ISPs. I am looking to get them an interconnect from their NA location to SA, into a PTT IX location in Sao Paulo (they seem to be up there for top IXs in SA, or am I mistaken?). First a clarification: PTT stands for traffic exchange point in Portuguese, so people familiar with this acronym related to telco companies or mobile/ http://ptt.br will only give you routes to Brazil, so you would still need other locations to reach other south american countries. If the content provider is already at Miami NOTA (Nap of The Americas), it's already at one of the best locations to be to reach all South America, but with if a latency penalty. I'm new to the PTT IXs so does anyone have any recommendations about any aspect here, support horror stories, reason to prefer one location for peering over another etc? I see Level3 are in the PTT Sao Paulo location, and we have access to Level 3 already. Is there someone else I should be looking at who is especially good at private routes down to SA, enough to digress from Level 3, or are Level 3 a good choice here? Again, any past experiences are welcome, and recommendations for a different IX or provider any why. PTT.br is a Layer-2 traffic exchange with route-servers, so you need either to colo a router here and back-haul your traffic (preferred solution) or to contract a lan-2-lan over MPLS circuit from a provider. Level 3 is probably your best bet, but one other option could be the BrT/Oi facility where Globenet (http://globenet.net/) has its Sao Paulo POP. You would probably prefer to deal with Globenet and have them hire colo and cross-connect from their sister company (Globenet is part of the Oi group). The only fiber cables with available capacity to get to South America are the ones from Level 3, Globenet and Telefónica, but Telefónica International is not a PTT.br location (although being a member and provide transit services) and Telefónica Brazil is so not helpful for such services. LANautilus has some capacity swap with Level 3 as well. In short: if you will be installing a router here but not servers, Level 3 (#1) or Globenet (#2). If you are not installing anything, Telefónica and LANautilus are also choices. If you would be sending a CDN node with servers and will only need Internet uplink, then you have more choices, but that's not my reading of your strategy, am I right ? Disclaimer: I work for the organization who maintains PTT.br. Rubens
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
- Original Message - From: Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk Jay Ashworth wrote: Now, those codecs *are* specially tuned for spoken word -- if you try to stuff music down them, it's not gonna work very well at all... It was claimed to me many years ago that the 4kHz cutoff used in POTS serves women and children less well than it does adult males. I have never been aware that I have any greater problems understanding women or children on the phone than I do men, but my hearing is not great. I can't hear the difference between G.711 and G.729, for example, but some people can. Googling PCM adult male voice, 4kHz adult male and similar isn't finding me anything. Was I told nonsense? No, you weren't. A 4khz channel is generally good from 3-400hz up to about 3.4khz, and if you look at spectrograms of the various categories of voices you can see the differences, though they're not always as clear cut as you might expect: http://www.dplay.com/tutorial/bands/index.html In general, though, intelligibility comes from the higher frequencies, and 3.4kHz is *usually* high enough. What might be the case is that you'd have more trouble *distinguishing* amongst women, or between women and children, because the tones necessary for that are more located above the cutoff frequency. In short: it depends a lot on what you mean by 'serves well'. :-) 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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
I also am concerned about 911 service. When dialing 911 recently from my mobile, I should have dialed it from my home phone as I was routed a few times to get to the right fire dispatch team. I am a second responder, a member of a Search and Rescue team. The reason for second is because we are not generally called till other agencies have tried to find the person. Hazmat falls into the same category because they are not generally called till another agency sees the situation and rolls them. I am also an COML (Communications Leader - IS-300 is a pre-req for this.) and a member of the South Central (PA) Task Force AWG. I am frightened about the availability of anything that falls into the category of emergency services. In PA most of the fire services are volunteer. Funding for everything is being cut at almost every level. The 911 hysteria that brought massive money, some of which was squandered, is over and now it is the shoe string. Our SAR team operates on a budget of $2,700 a year, yes, TWENTY SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS. Our team members supply their radios, clothing, boots, etc and the gas and transportation to searches and training. Although others get significant dollars it is never enough even for the most frugal companies and quite frankly, the York, Lancaster and Lebanon Counties in PA are hard headed Dutchmen Conservatives that generally get the most out of a buck. That issue aside a second issue is rampant in the area. More and more the Emergency Operations Centers are going to VOIP. The internet is not that reliable! I am not aware of a 911 that has gone to VOIP but pricing is dictating a look at this. During a Peach Bottom (nuclear power plant - one of our two in the area - the other is Three Mile Island) several of the EOC's lost phone, FAX and radio connectivity (repeater failures) to County EOC because of thunderstorms and tornados that blew in during the drill. The ham radio operators at these EOC's and County provided communications to the sites for both the drill and live events. They happened to be on site for the drill. The site I was at was vacated except the hams, the government evaluators and the public works guy because of a fire, all of the other players in the EOC including the EMC were firemen! A lack of volunteers means people wear multiple hats. But let's get to the big item. When the bad day comes, cellular is worthless. I was at work the day of the earthquake in Virginia, a couple hundred miles south of us. The ground shook and some masonry buildings in the area sustained cracks that needed to be repaired. Ten minutes after the quake cellular was either useless or had up to fifteen minute waits to place a call. Everyone was on discussing the quake. And cellular company pronouncements aside, it isn't going to get better, even if they get more bandwidth that will be eaten up in 2-4 years. The total migration to cellular, the unlimited use, the tendency for people to yack when a bad day comes all makes for a disaster. We need solutions, not cell company hype, not government catering to special interests, but real solutions that fix problems without introducing more. One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on unlimited plans, both voice and data. Go to what the landlines called, USS, that is you pay for every minute Even if that charge is small, it will drive usage down. Otherwise on a bad day people will die waiting for the yackers to get off the call phone so they can call 911. Hopefully it will not be on VOIP and the internet is down. Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM To: Eric Wieling Cc: NANOG list Subject: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a POTS line. This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec. Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when IP packet overhead added in). There are other codecs such as G.722.1 G.722.2 but the support isn't as broad as g711ulaw/alaw. Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it does are the same reasons that IP service may fail. The failure modes can depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL device to comparably retrain. The same is true for shared medium such as CATV but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc. Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box. Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup,
RE: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
I am not worried about the voice quality as long as it is understandable. What I am concerned about is, Can someone who needs help get through? Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 7:40 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP/Mobile Codecs (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Sean Harlow wrote: Originally, you said VoIP and cellular used bad codecs. Yeah, I overlooked that important detail, sorry. The cellular world works with less bandwidth and more loss than the VoIP world usually deals with, so while us VoIP guys sometimes use their codecs (GSM for example) they don't tend to bother with ours. Agreed. That said, the article you link is talking about the same sort of improvements by doubling the sampling rate, so the end result is similar. Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary to offer these HD services as an extra. It should be standard. Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 4.0 Date: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 12:33:29 UTC Location: Vancouver Island, Canada region Latitude: 50.6619; Longitude: -129.8861 Depth: 10.00 km
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Yes, those things happen. But there are several such failure points in the POTS system and hundreds in VOIP. I support VOIP, ISDN etc. But I know all too well the failure points... Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:25 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) - Original Message - From: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net I don't doubt it. However my practical experience is such that 100% of the time (I lost count after 20 or so, in a decade) I experienced a power failure the phone would still work. I am sure I am not the only one. Sure. (We're not really having this conversation here, are we? :-) Copper POTS service is centrally powered from a battery plant in the wire center, which is generally something like -52V nominal at 6000-8000ADC continuous. If you get a tool across those busbars uninsulated, it will flash into plasma much faster than you can blink; this happened at SPBGFLXA89H in the... mid to late 80s? I no longer remember the details, but the guy couldn't hear for several days, and the *entire* CO -- 30klines of GTD-5 and 100klines of 5E Remote -- was No Dial Tone for at least 12 hours while they cleaned it up; SPPD and PCSO were stationed on streetcorners to take emergency reports. 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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some emergency mode where only 911 calls get service. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
RE: POTS Ending (Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Connecticut has such a bill pending. My suggestion to people there, Get a ham radio license and a 2 meter transceiver with a car adapter... Ralph Brandt York PA -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:29 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG list Subject: POTS Ending (Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: Many states have regulations regarding how long dial tone needs to last during a power outage. Iowa's PUC (the IUB) requires at least two hours of backup power. We design ours for eight hours. One thing of note that I've been tracking is this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-16/landline-service-be coming-obsolete/54321184/1 I'm somewhat dubious about the following claims on the part of the carrier. This is a carrier that wants to meter your cellular data but provides wifi service inferior to the cellular data to offload their wireless network. -- snip -- Bill sponsors and phone companies including ATT say deregulating land-line phone service will increase competition and allow carriers to invest in better technology rather than expand a dying service. Some consumer organizations fear the change will hurt affordable service, especially in rural areas. -- snip -- - Jared
The Compexity Factor (was VoIP v POTS)
- Original Message - From: Ralph Brandt ralph.bra...@pateam.com Yes, those things happen. But there are several such failure points in the POTS system and hundreds in VOIP. I support VOIP, ISDN etc. But I know all too well the failure points... And here, Ralph puts his finger on what has always been my number one concern about the Internet, as cool as it is: The likelihood of a system's failure (and indeed, it's lack of complete use) is proportional to -- not solely, but prominentl -- its systemic complexity. There really isn't much that can fail in a current day copper POTS install, or more to the point: much that *does* fail. There are probably an order of magnitude or two more places that a VoIP residential phone line can stop working. Sure, you get more capability, but does that outweigh the reliability you lose? My answer is Not Always. Alas, I don't make those decisions. The same process has affected other disciplines; most notably (for me) photography: tried to buy a roll of 35mm ultraviolet film lately? Locally? 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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:01:01 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: In general, though, intelligibility comes from the higher frequencies, and 3.4kHz is *usually* high enough. What might be the case is that you'd have more trouble *distinguishing* amongst women, or between women and children, because the tones necessary for that are more located above the cutoff frequency. I have had more than a few surreal conversations on the phone with my daughter - once the 3.4kHz filter gets done, I can't distinguish her voice from her mom's (and yes, I've gotten social-engineered as a result). Life has gotten simpler since she got old enough to have her own cell phone. ;) pgpyVSYGgjivf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote: ** Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some ** emergency mode where only 911 calls get service. ** ** ** ** -- Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to cell service? ( added just to piss off Valdis) -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
That's precisely where SatCom enters the picture. Cell companies aren't ever going to undersell their bandwidth...that simply isn't profitable. SatCom is one of the best ways to plan for communications outages during times of crisis, especially if you choose a provider that's outside of your area. Unfortunately, you're going to end up spending at least one more order of magnitude on *decent* satellite service than you would spend on cell (unless you only go with a satphone). On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Brandt, Ralph ralph.bra...@pateam.com wrote: *SNIP* During a Peach Bottom (nuclear power plant - one of our two in the area - the other is Three Mile Island) several of the EOC's lost phone, FAX and radio connectivity (repeater failures) to County EOC because of thunderstorms and tornados that blew in during the drill. The ham radio operators at these EOC's and County provided communications to the sites for both the drill and live events. They happened to be on site for the drill. The site I was at was vacated except the hams, the government evaluators and the public works guy because of a fire, all of the other players in the EOC including the EMC were firemen! A lack of volunteers means people wear multiple hats. But let's get to the big item. When the bad day comes, cellular is worthless. I was at work the day of the earthquake in Virginia, a couple hundred miles south of us. The ground shook and some masonry buildings in the area sustained cracks that needed to be repaired. Ten minutes after the quake cellular was either useless or had up to fifteen minute waits to place a call. Everyone was on discussing the quake. And cellular company pronouncements aside, it isn't going to get better, even if they get more bandwidth that will be eaten up in 2-4 years. The total migration to cellular, the unlimited use, the tendency for people to yack when a bad day comes all makes for a disaster. We need solutions, not cell company hype, not government catering to special interests, but real solutions that fix problems without introducing more. One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on unlimited plans, both voice and data. Go to what the landlines called, USS, that is you pay for every minute Even if that charge is small, it will drive usage down. Otherwise on a bad day people will die waiting for the yackers to get off the call phone so they can call 911. Hopefully it will not be on VOIP and the internet is down. Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM To: Eric Wieling Cc: NANOG list Subject: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a POTS line. This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec. Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when IP packet overhead added in). There are other codecs such as G.722.1 G.722.2 but the support isn't as broad as g711ulaw/alaw. Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it does are the same reasons that IP service may fail. The failure modes can depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL device to comparably retrain. The same is true for shared medium such as CATV but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc. Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box. Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower loses power (usually 8-12 hours). I also am concerned about 911 service. When dialing 911 recently from my mobile, I should have dialed it from my home phone as I was routed a few times to get to the right fire dispatch team. Oh well. - Jared -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
On May 3, 2012, at 12:26, Mike Hale wrote: Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to cell service? That would be the Nationwide Wireless Priority Service. Authorized users can dial *272destination to get priority on supported wireless networks. If the landline networks are also backed up, they can make the call to (710) NCS-GETS which is the gateway number for the Government Emergency Telecommunications System which provides the same priority on POTS lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Wireless_Priority_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Emergency_Telecommunications_Service --- Sean Harlow s...@seanharlow.info
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
Jay Ashworth wrote: Googling PCM adult male voice, 4kHz adult male and similar isn't finding me anything. Was I told nonsense? [snippage] What might be the case is that you'd have more trouble *distinguishing* amongst women, or between women and children, because the tones necessary for that are more located above the cutoff frequency. Thank you for this and the link. Very interesting stuff. I have never tried to check to what extent I / others can distinguish different female / young speakers on the phone. I shall try to pay more attention to this in the future. In short: it depends a lot on what you mean by 'serves well'. :-) Well, just the above seems like enough that you'd think there'd be more (justified) grumbling that thanks to a choice made many many decades ago it's harder to distinguish young or female speakers than it is adult male ones. Maybe there is and I've just not noticed it. Is this one of the things pushing adoption of higher bandwidth audio codecs? (My guess: no.)
Re: Peering in Brazil
On May 3, 2012, at 2:28 AM, James Bensley wrote: I'm new to the PTT IXs so does anyone have any recommendations about any aspect here, support horror stories, reason to prefer one location for peering over another etc? I see Level3 are in the PTT Sao Paulo location, and we have access to Level 3 already. Is there someone else I should be looking at who is especially good at private routes down to SA, enough to digress from Level 3, or are Level 3 a good choice here? Again, any past experiences are welcome, and recommendations for a different IX or provider any why. My experience with PTT IXs is great. They are being ran professionally. People who you deal with support is extremely helpful and have knowledge on what they are doing. Sao Paulo is definitely the biggest but there is significant traffic in other locations as well. mehmet
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
- Original Message - From: Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk Well, just the above seems like enough that you'd think there'd be more (justified) grumbling that thanks to a choice made many many decades ago it's harder to distinguish young or female speakers than it is adult male ones. Maybe there is and I've just not noticed it. Is this one of the things pushing adoption of higher bandwidth audio codecs? (My guess: no.) Not directly, I don't think, no. I suspect it's merely why not? 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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
On 5/3/12 10:29 , Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk Well, just the above seems like enough that you'd think there'd be more (justified) grumbling that thanks to a choice made many many decades ago it's harder to distinguish young or female speakers than it is adult male ones. Maybe there is and I've just not noticed it. Is this one of the things pushing adoption of higher bandwidth audio codecs? (My guess: no.) Not directly, I don't think, no. I suspect it's merely why not? wideband codecs carry music a lot better. the can have considerably more dynamic range than you can expect from an 8 bit pcm mulaw encoding (about 45bB). that helps a lot in the speaker phone situation. if you have the opportunity to compare pstn and mp3 recordings of the same meeting like I do on occasion the difference is considerable. Cheers, -- jra
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
The problem with this is, MOST 911 CALLS ARE CELLULAR or soon will be. Ralph Brandt PA -Original Message- From: Tei [mailto:oscar.vi...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:15 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some emergency mode where only 911 calls get service. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
RE: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why)
As one involved in emergency services I don't gave a rats whether you can't tell one voice from another. I do care if someone who is having a fire, accident, cardiac episode or stroke can get through. The cell companies are worrying about your whim and not the safety. Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:33 AM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Cellphones and Audio (was Ghost Click, though I got no idea why) On Thu, 03 May 2012 11:01:01 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: In general, though, intelligibility comes from the higher frequencies, and 3.4kHz is *usually* high enough. What might be the case is that you'd have more trouble *distinguishing* amongst women, or between women and children, because the tones necessary for that are more located above the cutoff frequency. I have had more than a few surreal conversations on the phone with my daughter - once the 3.4kHz filter gets done, I can't distinguish her voice from her mom's (and yes, I've gotten social-engineered as a result). Life has gotten simpler since she got old enough to have her own cell phone. ;)
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Brandt ralph.bra...@pateam.com
The problem with this is, MOST 911 CALLS ARE CELLULAR or soon will be.
{citation-needed}
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 http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
I spent a week in a PEMA conference last fall. One of the presentations was from two ILECS and 1 CLEC. The answer we got was, yes we do but no we can't. Got it? What I understand after grilling the 5 reps from one company and three for the other, is they have priority of who can make a call but not in who can get the system attention. SO till you get the system attention, you don't go anywhere. The ILEC is not in cell and admitted they had problems, were working on them, do not have them all solved, do not know if they can solve them all - they had some credibility. I looked at the other two as snake oil salesmen I was the only one who asked any questions. Ralph Brandt York PA 17055 -Original Message- From: Mike Hale [mailto:eyeronic.des...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:26 PM To: Tei Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote: ** Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some ** emergency mode where only 911 calls get service. ** ** ** ** -- Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to cell service? ( added just to piss off Valdis) -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Satcoms are the panacea for every problem until you try them. They too have limited numbers of channels, far lower than cell. Check the fiasco in Haiti when sat phones were handed out and it took hours to make calls. Sometimes two tin cans and a string are better Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Mike Hale [mailto:eyeronic.des...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:32 PM To: Brandt, Ralph Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) That's precisely where SatCom enters the picture. Cell companies aren't ever going to undersell their bandwidth...that simply isn't profitable. SatCom is one of the best ways to plan for communications outages during times of crisis, especially if you choose a provider that's outside of your area. Unfortunately, you're going to end up spending at least one more order of magnitude on *decent* satellite service than you would spend on cell (unless you only go with a satphone). On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Brandt, Ralph ralph.bra...@pateam.com wrote: *SNIP* During a Peach Bottom (nuclear power plant - one of our two in the area - the other is Three Mile Island) several of the EOC's lost phone, FAX and radio connectivity (repeater failures) to County EOC because of thunderstorms and tornados that blew in during the drill. The ham radio operators at these EOC's and County provided communications to the sites for both the drill and live events. They happened to be on site for the drill. The site I was at was vacated except the hams, the government evaluators and the public works guy because of a fire, all of the other players in the EOC including the EMC were firemen! A lack of volunteers means people wear multiple hats. But let's get to the big item. When the bad day comes, cellular is worthless. I was at work the day of the earthquake in Virginia, a couple hundred miles south of us. The ground shook and some masonry buildings in the area sustained cracks that needed to be repaired. Ten minutes after the quake cellular was either useless or had up to fifteen minute waits to place a call. Everyone was on discussing the quake. And cellular company pronouncements aside, it isn't going to get better, even if they get more bandwidth that will be eaten up in 2-4 years. The total migration to cellular, the unlimited use, the tendency for people to yack when a bad day comes all makes for a disaster. We need solutions, not cell company hype, not government catering to special interests, but real solutions that fix problems without introducing more. One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on unlimited plans, both voice and data. Go to what the landlines called, USS, that is you pay for every minute Even if that charge is small, it will drive usage down. Otherwise on a bad day people will die waiting for the yackers to get off the call phone so they can call 911. Hopefully it will not be on VOIP and the internet is down. Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM To: Eric Wieling Cc: NANOG list Subject: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a POTS line. This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec. Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when IP packet overhead added in). There are other codecs such as G.722.1 G.722.2 but the support isn't as broad as g711ulaw/alaw. Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it does are the same reasons that IP service may fail. The failure modes can depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL device to comparably retrain. The same is true for shared medium such as CATV but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc. Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box. Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower loses power (usually 8-12 hours). I also am concerned about 911 service. When dialing 911 recently from my mobile, I should have dialed it from my home phone as I was routed a few times to get to the right fire dispatch team. Oh well. - Jared -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
RE: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Sean, do you know anyone who has successfully used either to place a call? I think the weak spot is when the tower overloads nobody can dial anything, including the bypass.. Ralph Brandt Communications Engineer HP Enterprise Services Telephone +1 717.506.0802 FAX +1 717.506.4358 Email ralph.bra...@pateam.com 5095 Ritter Rd Mechanicsburg PA 17055 -Original Message- From: Sean Harlow [mailto:s...@seanharlow.info] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:36 PM To: Mike Hale Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 3, 2012, at 12:26, Mike Hale wrote: Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to cell service? That would be the Nationwide Wireless Priority Service. Authorized users can dial *272destination to get priority on supported wireless networks. If the landline networks are also backed up, they can make the call to (710) NCS-GETS which is the gateway number for the Government Emergency Telecommunications System which provides the same priority on POTS lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_Wireless_Priority_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Emergency_Telecommunications_Ser vice --- Sean Harlow s...@seanharlow.info
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
On May 3, 2012, at 14:19, Jay Ashworth wrote:
{citation-needed}
I don't have any numbers to offer, but given the near universality of cellular
phones these days among the adult population I could easily see a majority
going for cellular. Car accidents, house fires, and a lot of other types of
911 call are probably almost entirely from mobile. Car accidents and anything
else 911-worthy near a busy probably contribute a ton of calls about the same
incident (not worthwhile calls, but calls nonetheless). There are also many
people, myself included, who do not have a traditional landline. If they don't
have VoIP or it's not working for some reason, everything becomes a mobile call.
Again not arguing one side or another, just that there's enough mobile usage
that it would seem reasonable either way.
---
Sean Harlow
s...@seanharlow.info
Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Absolutely. Again, it depends on what service you use, what contention the provider gives you, and so forth. If you go with a quality provider and a good service plan, you will not get bumped off in favor of someone else. Of course, you're paying much more for service like that, but you really do get what you pay for, especially when it comes to satellite. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Brandt, Ralph ralph.bra...@pateam.com wrote: Satcoms are the panacea for every problem until you try them. They too have limited numbers of channels, far lower than cell. Check the fiasco in Haiti when sat phones were handed out and it took hours to make calls. Sometimes two tin cans and a string are better Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Mike Hale [mailto:eyeronic.des...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:32 PM To: Brandt, Ralph Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) That's precisely where SatCom enters the picture. Cell companies aren't ever going to undersell their bandwidth...that simply isn't profitable. SatCom is one of the best ways to plan for communications outages during times of crisis, especially if you choose a provider that's outside of your area. Unfortunately, you're going to end up spending at least one more order of magnitude on *decent* satellite service than you would spend on cell (unless you only go with a satphone). On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Brandt, Ralph ralph.bra...@pateam.com wrote: *SNIP* During a Peach Bottom (nuclear power plant - one of our two in the area - the other is Three Mile Island) several of the EOC's lost phone, FAX and radio connectivity (repeater failures) to County EOC because of thunderstorms and tornados that blew in during the drill. The ham radio operators at these EOC's and County provided communications to the sites for both the drill and live events. They happened to be on site for the drill. The site I was at was vacated except the hams, the government evaluators and the public works guy because of a fire, all of the other players in the EOC including the EMC were firemen! A lack of volunteers means people wear multiple hats. But let's get to the big item. When the bad day comes, cellular is worthless. I was at work the day of the earthquake in Virginia, a couple hundred miles south of us. The ground shook and some masonry buildings in the area sustained cracks that needed to be repaired. Ten minutes after the quake cellular was either useless or had up to fifteen minute waits to place a call. Everyone was on discussing the quake. And cellular company pronouncements aside, it isn't going to get better, even if they get more bandwidth that will be eaten up in 2-4 years. The total migration to cellular, the unlimited use, the tendency for people to yack when a bad day comes all makes for a disaster. We need solutions, not cell company hype, not government catering to special interests, but real solutions that fix problems without introducing more. One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on unlimited plans, both voice and data. Go to what the landlines called, USS, that is you pay for every minute Even if that charge is small, it will drive usage down. Otherwise on a bad day people will die waiting for the yackers to get off the call phone so they can call 911. Hopefully it will not be on VOIP and the internet is down. Ralph Brandt -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM To: Eric Wieling Cc: NANOG list Subject: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click) On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote: I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a POTS line. This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec. Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when IP packet overhead added in). There are other codecs such as G.722.1 G.722.2 but the support isn't as broad as g711ulaw/alaw. Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it does are the same reasons that IP service may fail. The failure modes can depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible static on the line) that cause your ear to retrain, which may cause a DSL device to comparably retrain. The same is true for shared medium such as CATV but this has other problems as well, if not well isolated, somebody can short out the segment or send garbage at the wrong channel, etc. Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box. Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower loses power (usually 8-12 hours). I also am
RE: mulcast assignments
You can also use the glop IP addressing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180 Quentin -Original Message- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjs...@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: mulcast assignments Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need address assignments. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote: How do I get a registered multicast block?
Re: mulcast assignments
Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent quentin.carp...@vtx-telecom.ch wrote: You can also use the glop IP addressing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180 Quentin -Original Message- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjs...@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: mulcast assignments Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need address assignments. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote: How do I get a registered multicast block?
Re: mulcast assignments
Simpler solution... Just set the P flag and use your unicast prefix as part of the group ID. For example, if your unicast prefix is 2001:db8:f00d::/48, you could use: ff4e:2001:db8:f00d::group number Where group number is any number of your choosing up to 64 bits, but recommended to be ≤32 bits. Make sense? Owen On May 3, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent quentin.carp...@vtx-telecom.ch wrote: You can also use the glop IP addressing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180 Quentin -Original Message- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjs...@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: mulcast assignments Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need address assignments. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote: How do I get a registered multicast block?
IPv6 aggregation tool
Hi list, I can't seem to find any tools that'll aggregate a list of IPv6 prefixes. Used to 'aggregate' for IPv4, looking for something similar for IPv6. Thanks!
Re: mulcast assignments
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Simpler solution... Just set the P flag and use your unicast prefix as part of the group ID. For example, if your unicast prefix is 2001:db8:f00d::/48, you could use: ff4e:2001:db8:f00d::group number Where group number is any number of your choosing up to 64 bits, but recommended to be ≤32 bits. Make sense? Sure, for v6. :) Greg Owen On May 3, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent quentin.carp...@vtx-telecom.ch wrote: You can also use the glop IP addressing: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180 Quentin -Original Message- From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjs...@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM To: Philip Lavine Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: mulcast assignments Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need address assignments. Greg On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine source_ro...@yahoo.com wrote: How do I get a registered multicast block?
Re: mulcast assignments
On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:38:14 -0700, Greg Shepherd said: Make sense? Sure, for v6. :) Does it make sense to be planning new deployments for anythign else? ;) (Hint - if your reaction is but we're not v6-capable, who's fault is that?) pgpI1LRac8WuO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPv6 aggregation tool
Looks like the most recent NetAddr::IP perl module will do it: http://search.cpan.org/~miker/NetAddr-IP-4.059/IP.pm#EXPORT_OK Take a look at the Compact function. I think that's what will do it. --chip On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Rafael Rodriguez packetjoc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi list, I can't seem to find any tools that'll aggregate a list of IPv6 prefixes. Used to 'aggregate' for IPv4, looking for something similar for IPv6. Thanks! -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc
Re: mulcast assignments
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:38:14 -0700, Greg Shepherd said: Make sense? Sure, for v6. :) Does it make sense to be planning new deployments for anythign else? ;) (Hint - if your reaction is but we're not v6-capable, who's fault is that?) The original question was not from me. :) But even for IPv6 I would avoid embedded addressing and just use SSM. With SSM there's no need for embedded addressing and again you get all the security and network simplicity. FF3x::/96 Greg
Re: mulcast assignments
On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote: Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way - except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive roll-outs. Nick
Re: NUD- ipV6.
On 03/05/12 16:07, S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) wrote: Hi Everyone, Would like to hear from you on the significance of IPV6 Neighbor Unreachability detection (NUD) specifically on the Router-Router link. While quick failure detection protocols like BFD are already present to detect the liveliness of the neighbor, does the providers/operators find NUD to be useful? Rgds/ Somasundaram Coming from an Alcatel address, presumably you're aiming for MEF-compliance? i.e. Can it detect a dead neighbour in 50ms or under? might be a better query. I'd be interested to hear what people think, anyway. :) Tom
Re: mulcast assignments
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote: Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way - except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive roll-outs. I haven't seen a piece of network gear without SSM support in a very long time. The weak link is the applications. It was the OS stacks but that's finally caught up - it only took it 10 years... The weakest link is simply multicast deployment - if it's not everywhere it has little use. That's what AMT is promising to fix. And with AMT comes the opportunity to bring SSM to non-SSM-capable apps if it is implemented correctly. Greg Nick
Re: mulcast assignments
And I've seen plenty of gear without SSM support: Some of the larger offenders: Juniper Clusters. Cisco ASA Some Linksys managed switches (no IGMP snooping support for it). I really wouldn't think it'd be that hard to implement SSM if the equipment had functional ASM support, but that's a story for another day I guess. Most development for mcast largely occurred between the last 90s and early 2000s it seems. Since ~2005 once the hopes of inter-domain multicast fizzled and IPTV failed to launch in any meaningfully way, multicast development has largely been neglected by the major equipment vendors and cast away as some funky thing used by certain enterprise and educational market segments. At least, IMHO... On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Greg Shepherd gjs...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote: Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast address you have along with vastly superior security and network simplicity. SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way - except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive roll-outs. I haven't seen a piece of network gear without SSM support in a very long time. The weak link is the applications. It was the OS stacks but that's finally caught up - it only took it 10 years... The weakest link is simply multicast deployment - if it's not everywhere it has little use. That's what AMT is promising to fix. And with AMT comes the opportunity to bring SSM to non-SSM-capable apps if it is implemented correctly. Greg Nick
Re: IPv6 aggregation tool
Found this tool that works perfectly. http://zwitterion.org/software/aggregate-cidr-addresses/aggregate-cidr-addresses Hoping this'll help someone else here on the list. Thanks! On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Rafael Rodriguez packetjoc...@gmail.comwrote: Hi list, I can't seem to find any tools that'll aggregate a list of IPv6 prefixes. Used to 'aggregate' for IPv4, looking for something similar for IPv6. Thanks!
RE: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin
Check out InterMapper (http://www.intermapper.com/) Its java based, but works real well
Re: IPv6 aggregation tool
The Net::CIDR package contains functions that manipulate lists of IP netblocks expressed in CIDR notation. The Net::CIDR functions handle both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. WWW: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-CIDR/ On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 04:58:27PM -0400, chip wrote: Looks like the most recent NetAddr::IP perl module will do it: http://search.cpan.org/~miker/NetAddr-IP-4.059/IP.pm#EXPORT_OK Take a look at the Compact function. I think that's what will do it. --chip On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Rafael Rodriguez packetjoc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi list, I can't seem to find any tools that'll aggregate a list of IPv6 prefixes. Used to 'aggregate' for IPv4, looking for something similar for IPv6. Thanks! -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc -- - (2^(N-1))
