Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
USF for broadband is scary... The big problems... 1) There will be a push to use funds for fiber networks, (since so many are pushing for higher speeds for consumers, and with USF mentality its not a competition to spend cost effectively.). 2) There will be a push to give money to pre-existing USF recipients. (Government doesn't want to compete with itself. And easier to work with companies already proven to have experience in USF) 3) WISPs may not qualify if they dont reclass themselves as a LEC or Common Carrier. 4) Even though many WISPs consider themselves rural, most WISP's subscriber are still in areas that would be payees into the fund, not recipients of the fund. So most WISPs could get hit with a 6% USF fee, taking away a strategic selling advantage over LECs. 5) USF creates small monopolies, kills fair competition, and kills start-ups. (I believe USF can only go to one entity in an area, I think) 6) One risk is that federal policy will tend to favor those that invest in fiber, and disadvantage those that use old technology to encourage investment in new technology. I could see them, exempting FIOS from paying into the fund, because it is broadband not regulated telecom, but RBOCs being recipients. 7) double edge sword Narrowing qualification for USF area, will prevent fewer LEC competitiors to WISP pre-existing operations and expansion markets. However having narrower qualification could prevent more WISPs from being eligible. Many believe USF should be killed. But others believe that even though it should be killed, if one votes for killing it, they will just be throwing away their vote, becaues there will likely be some level of USF reform, and WISPs would be better off influencing the rules, than fighting for something that wont occur. My opinion... We should be suggesting to FCC alternatives 1) Allow any and all to qualify for funds that step up to deploy, at the same subsidee rate within an area. Meaning qualification is areas not entities. (Many will argue that subsidized areas cant sustain competition, and better chance of success with less duplication). Sure, no two subsidees to the same house, but first one to the house gets to claim the subsidee for it. Make it a race where all get paid for their progress and diversity. 2) Make sure ALL competitively advantaged companies pay into the fund. WISPs should not have to pay into the funds for two reasons... 1) THeir upstream already pays, and WISP is just an extension of the upstream. Fixed Wireless is a disadvantaged technology for advanced broadband, and targets underserved users in all areas of America. It would be counter productive to start taxing WISPs with USF funds. Thus WISPs should be exempt. Broadband provider below a certain size should be exempt from USF contribution. 3) Pre-existing recipients should NOT have preferencial treatment. Actually, maybe the Dept of Justice should be asked to step in (responsible for anti-trust and such) to prevent the unfair competitive advantage that pre-existing USF recipients would have to gain USF Broadband subsidees. 4) Suggest replace the USF with customer Voucher system, (explained well by MAtt LArson not to long ago). Where recipient choses their provider, and can apply their voucher. With Voucher system it takes away the false positive, because all can qualify regardless of if a provider is already in an area. It levels the playing field. 5) argue that in areas where there really isn;t enough subs for competition to exist, it wont be a problem, because business men will analyze a market and competitive environment and not waste their time deploying in an area where there is already someone else that got a head start in a limited sub market. . 6)Argue, the problem with USF may not be the terms of payee side. The problem is program terms on how many is awarded. 7) Argue there are good enough technologies available to serve rural area cost effectively with less USF subsidations. (AKA wireless). 8) Argue that there is little need for USF for broadband anymore. I believe it is still possible to gain an outcome to kill USF. Ask New Jersey senator what he thinks! 9) Subsidees should have DUAL purpose not single purpose. Meaning, it should not just be to get broadband to rural area. It should also simulataneously subsidize the growth of small yound companies to stronger companies to build and strengthen an industry. The reality Truth is If Verizon were to charge their non-rural subs 6%, and then be forced to reallocated that 6% revenue to fund Verizon build-out, would that be a Good thing? Forcing one company to deploy a specific percentage of profit to rural America? That is the fundamental arguement that needs to be answered first. (that removes the arguement verison should have to subsidize their competitors). One reason USF has not been easy to kill is that many believe that is an
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
I am not sure I agree with the conclusion. I think we are going to see some new applications that use some of the things that IPv6 offers, like multi-cast and any-cast in ways we can not imagine, yet. When they do and the consumer demand comes, the SOHO router market will catch. ISPs better be ready. The biggest thing I see is NO MORE NAT. The XBox, PS3, WII, etc. all have there own public IPv6 IP. No more UPnP, NAT Type etc. And the worst part is P2P will work better having a public IP as well. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Yes, it would appear we are going to have to build our networks to support what the customer wants rather than limit what they can do because our infrastructure won't support. On 2/8/2011 10:10 AM, Matt wrote: I am not sure I agree with the conclusion. I think we are going to see some new applications that use some of the things that IPv6 offers, like multi-cast and any-cast in ways we can not imagine, yet. When they do and the consumer demand comes, the SOHO router market will catch. ISPs better be ready. The biggest thing I see is NO MORE NAT. The XBox, PS3, WII, etc. all have there own public IPv6 IP. No more UPnP, NAT Type etc. And the worst part is P2P will work better having a public IP as well. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband
inline On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: USF for broadband is scary... The big problems... 1) There will be a push to use funds for fiber networks, (since so many are pushing for higher speeds for consumers, and with USF mentality its not a competition to spend cost effectively.). 2) There will be a push to give money to pre-existing USF recipients. (Government doesn't want to compete with itself. And easier to work with companies already proven to have experience in USF) 3) WISPs may not qualify if they dont reclass themselves as a LEC or Common Carrier. 4) Even though many WISPs consider themselves rural, most WISP's subscriber are still in areas that would be payees into the fund, not recipients of the fund. So most WISPs could get hit with a 6% USF fee, taking away a strategic selling advantage over LECs. 5) USF creates small monopolies, kills fair competition, and kills start-ups. (I believe USF can only go to one entity in an area, I think) 6) One risk is that federal policy will tend to favor those that invest in fiber, and disadvantage those that use old technology to encourage investment in new technology. I could see them, exempting FIOS from paying into the fund, because it is broadband not regulated telecom, but RBOCs being recipients. 7) double edge sword Narrowing qualification for USF area, will prevent fewer LEC competitiors to WISP pre-existing operations and expansion markets. However having narrower qualification could prevent more WISPs from being eligible. Many believe USF should be killed. But others believe that even though it should be killed, if one votes for killing it, they will just be throwing away their vote, becaues there will likely be some level of USF reform, and WISPs would be better off influencing the rules, than fighting for something that wont occur. This is exactly how I feel. My opinion... We should be suggesting to FCC alternatives 1) Allow any and all to qualify for funds that step up to deploy, at the same subsidee rate within an area. Meaning qualification is areas not entities. (Many will argue that subsidized areas cant sustain competition, and better chance of success with less duplication). Sure, no two subsidees to the same house, but first one to the house gets to claim the subsidee for it. Make it a race where all get paid for their progress and diversity. A per house subsidized payment is a great idea on the surface. This should be explored for icebergs. If the USF was turned into a XX/per house installed that qualifies. How would wisps handle the case where someone moves out (transfer the equipment? leave it?) and then someone else moves in and wants service? If the service stayed at the house, then no new fund for the install. If the service moved with the user, then how does one subsidize the new person? 2) Make sure ALL competitively advantaged companies pay into the fund. WISPs What would define a 'competitively advantaged company' ? Do you mean companies that want to pull funds from the USF ? Or companies that offer broadband? should not have to pay into the funds for two reasons... 1) THeir upstream already pays, and WISP is just an extension of the upstream. Fixed Wireless is a disadvantaged technology for advanced broadband, and targets underserved users in all areas of America. It would be counter productive to start taxing WISPs with USF funds. Thus WISPs should be exempt. Broadband provider below a certain size should be exempt from USF contribution. Calling wireless disadvantaged could be a double edged sword when asking for more RF. Us: We need more RF FCC: Why? You can not use it effectively or advantageously. Us: Give us it and we will FCC: 3) Pre-existing recipients should NOT have preferencial treatment. Actually, maybe the Dept of Justice should be asked to step in (responsible for anti-trust and such) to prevent the unfair competitive advantage that pre-existing USF recipients would have to gain USF Broadband subsidees. The DoJ should be looking at all the RUS crap very closely. I wish that corps that are found guilty of fraud with USF/RUS/etc gov money, would be instantly frozen, broken and sold. Or maybe I just need some counseling for anger at pork barreling. 4) Suggest replace the USF with customer Voucher system, (explained well by MAtt LArson not to long ago). Where recipient choses their provider, and can apply their voucher. I think I missed this. Was it on list? With Voucher system it takes away the false positive, because all can qualify regardless of if a provider is already in an area. It levels the playing field. So this works by the client handing the provider a credit slip. How does the provider redeem them? Tax credits or cash? For me, I would do free installs for a one time $200 cash credit. (plus my MRC for the end user is the lowest in the county) 5) argue
[WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
IPV6 will make Usage Based Billing even more important to implement. Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications http://www.wavelinc.com P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 Sent from Microsoft Outlook -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Yes, it would appear we are going to have to build our networks to support what the customer wants rather than limit what they can do because our infrastructure won't support. On 2/8/2011 10:10 AM, Matt wrote: I am not sure I agree with the conclusion. I think we are going to see some new applications that use some of the things that IPv6 offers, like multi-cast and any-cast in ways we can not imagine, yet. When they do and the consumer demand comes, the SOHO router market will catch. ISPs better be ready. The biggest thing I see is NO MORE NAT. The XBox, PS3, WII, etc. all have there own public IPv6 IP. No more UPnP, NAT Type etc. And the worst part is P2P will work better having a public IP as well. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ attachment: Kurt Fankhauser (kurt@wavelinc.com).vcf WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
I would question whether using 10mhz channel size would work... you probably have to go back to standard 20mhz channel sizes to make them talk... this is just a guess... Travis Microserv On 2/8/2011 9:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
The only way that I could make UBNT even connect to a StarOS AP was to be in 20Mhz channels and set the RTS as high as possible. Then it worked very poorly. Best thing I ever did was pull all my StarOS off the towers and go to Mikrotik for my AP's. Now looking at switching certain towers to UBNT Rockets /gps when they come out to get cleaner air and more throughput. Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Roger Howard Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:13 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
... Sorry for short answer there is more info if you search the UBNT Forums. short / quick:- Don't use Airmax (Airmax off) Setup for 20mhz channels.. (other channel sizes may not be compatible). There is a bunch of ifs' and but's here.. the big question is what is it you are trying to do ? Transition ? or trying to make them all work together ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 2/8/2011 11:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
AFAIK only Ubnt and Mikrotik are the two to cooperate in 10 Mhz channels. I have read that Tranzeo joined this 10 Mhz party. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ... Sorry for short answer there is more info if you search the UBNT Forums. short / quick:- Don't use Airmax (Airmax off) Setup for 20mhz channels.. (other channel sizes may not be compatible). There is a bunch of ifs' and but's here.. the big question is what is it you are trying to do ? Transition ? or trying to make them all work together ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 2/8/2011 11:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Waco and Nacogdoches TX
We are looking for help in the Waco and Nacogdoches Texas area. Please contact me off-list if you are in the area of either. Thanks, Mike Goicoechea VP of Operations Cielo Systems International 806-977-9001 ext 101 806-763-1945 fax Skype Mike.Goik m...@cielosystems.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
Trying to transition. We have been adding airmax sectors to the towers, changing out StarOS clients for airmax ones, then taking down the StarOS sectors when everyone is upgraded... Then we've been using the StarOS clients on the legacy network which is not upgraded yet. Would be nice if we didn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and we could deploy ONLY airmax clients everywhere. I tried version 1.4.22 on the AP and the NSM2 appears to work OK with that. But I have had problems using 1.4.22 since it seems more susceptible to noise. So it sounds like I'm going to have to continue with the original plan. Thanks, Roger On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ... Sorry for short answer there is more info if you search the UBNT Forums. short / quick:- Don't use Airmax (Airmax off) Setup for 20mhz channels.. (other channel sizes may not be compatible). There is a bunch of ifs' and but's here.. the big question is what is it you are trying to do ? Transition ? or trying to make them all work together ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 2/8/2011 11:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch?
Are you sure on that? I'm not an expert on CISCO, and could have it wrong but, I had thought Known fact... Cisco 3550 (enterprise OS ver) was an industry standard Gig router that also did OSPF and BGP, although now End of Lifed.. It was easy and affordable to find on used market. It didn't support newer things like MPLS packet sizes and such. However, I thought the 3560 was actually a newer model but also a scaled down version of the 3550 router. Either having less processing power or RAM limits. Therefore not very advantageous to get a 3560. I then thought the 3750 (enterprise OS ver) switch was the current day product equivellent to the 3550 spec, good for BGP and OSPF, but better, for example using the smaller FC iconnectors nstead of SC connectors, and possibly support of newer Cisco supported protocols also. So my question is Is the 3560 really an equivellent of a 3750 minus stackwise? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:40 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch? 3660 is a router, 3560 is a switch. In fact, the 3560 is pretty much the 3750 series w/out StackWise. A Catalyst 3750 can be had for around 2k on the refurbished market. I can put you in touch with a reseller if needed. -- Blake Covarrubias On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Blake Bowers wrote: Naturally - and I have stacks of 3660's that are barely above scrap value. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them down here! Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today. - Original Message - From: John J Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 12:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Gigabit Router or L3 Switch? Cisco 3560 series are about $4000... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
The problem I see with ARIN right now is that ARIN is still controlled by the largest carriers, who own large pools with excess V4 IP space available. It is not to their benefit to preserve V4 space, when they control whats remaining. What it will mean is that many small providers will become enslaven to their upstream Tier1 providers. In my opinion this is an emergency situation, that the FCC or Feds should step in on. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to IPv4 space as happened to Domain Names, where horders extort the system to gain huge unfair profits. I recognize that large blocks are now gone. What I wonder is whether small blocks are still available at ARIN? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses At 2/7/2011 11:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Who says anything about giving up old IP space? It's not chattel property. It is merely an identifier in a protocol header, used under a voluntary agreement to exchange traffic. It was given away for free; it can be taken back. The FCC has legal authority over the North American Numbering Plan in the US, which is the *name* space for telephones. Unlike the Internet, it's not voluntary, it's regulated. About a decade ago, they ordered Number Pooling to begin. Carriers who had prefix codes with unused or under-utilized thousands blocks had to return them. Carriers today still have to file semiannual reports on number utilization. Notice how area code splits suddenly slowed to a crawl in the early part of the last decade? Number pooling did it. This was not voluntary. Your unused blocks of numbers were Reclaimed. If IANA or the RIRs wanted to do this, they could. They could simply announce that HP no longer owns Net 16 (old DEC space acquired with Compaq), for instance, effective x date, and HP should stop using it. And Halliburton and Daimler-Benz and other large-block holders should also lose unneeded space and be told to renumber. And then they should ask BGP users to respect the new assignments. Since the Internet is *voluntary*, Uncle Sam has no say; the ISP community decides who is the real owner of the space. The lawyers will, of course, try to find a way to get involved, since IPv4 address blocks *can* now be resold (to qualified buyers), so the large-block owners might see this as taking away windfall profits that they might be able to make by selling those oversized blocks. IAB made their bed, and now they'll have to sleep in it. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. A good reason to assume that anything of any interest to the general public will remain on IPv4 for the foreseeable future, and v6-only will be limited to narrow-interest activities. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
It is my understanding that many organizations held large allocations before the RIRs were formed. I wouldn't expect those allocations to be held to ARIN rules. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/8/2011 12:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
Tranzeo joined the 10mhz party about a year ago with a simple firmware upgrade to the CPQ/SL units. Before that only their newer SL2 radios with a specific mini-PCI card had the option to do 10mhz And even that was only about 18-months prior to now. I will say though that the 10mhz Tranzeo's plays quite nice with a Mikrotik AP and I am getting about 8-9mbps to clients within 2 miles. This has enabled me to survive a little longer before upgrading the network. I will say if Tranzeo hadn't have added the 10mhz when they did I would really be hurtin but it came along just at the right time and squeeze some more life outa these ugly white square's that everyone hates. Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications http://www.wavelinc.com P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 Sent from Microsoft Outlook _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:40 AM To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS AFAIK only Ubnt and Mikrotik are the two to cooperate in 10 Mhz channels. I have read that Tranzeo joined this 10 Mhz party. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ... Sorry for short answer there is more info if you search the UBNT Forums. short / quick:- Don't use Airmax (Airmax off) Setup for 20mhz channels.. (other channel sizes may not be compatible). There is a bunch of ifs' and but's here.. the big question is what is it you are trying to do ? Transition ? or trying to make them all work together ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 2/8/2011 11:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ attachment: Kurt Fankhauser (kurt@wavelinc.com).vcf WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:14, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: It is my understanding that many organizations held large allocations before the RIRs were formed. I wouldn't expect those allocations to be held to ARIN rules. They're not. If you follow ARIN politics, there's always a lot of lively discussion about how to handle legacy address holders, like what you describe. David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wanted to Buy - TrangoLink-45 (with external antenna port)
Hello everyone. Anyone have one of these they want to sell?? Please hit me off-list at b...@jencospeed.net Thanks !! Brad H WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
In spite of the noteworthy efforts on the part of many WISP operators and in spite of a temporary decrease in the levels of TDWR interference reported to us by the FCC, the TDWR interference situation has unfortunately deteriorated. The FCC now reports that some locations (New York, Chicago, Denver and Dallas) that were recently “cleared” of interference are once again experiencing significant interference problems. The TDWR interference in San Juan Puerto Rico is so bad that the TDWR system had to be shut off by the FAA. This is not good news because the FAA is pushing the FCC to solve these interference problems once and for all. Voluntary database registration has unfortunately not proven to be effective enough. There are still some operators who apparently have not heard about the TDWR interference problem and some who have simply failed to bring and keep their systems in compliance. On the supply-chain side, there are several manufacturers and distributors who did take positive, affirmative and responsible action to help address the problem however they were they in the minority. Most manufacturers and distributors did not “step up to the plate” with customer education or software upgrades. Because airline safety is a very important issue, it only takes a few “bad actors” to cause significant problems for everyone else. The FCC is under strong pressure to take steps to solve the interference problem for good. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has started drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We don’t know yet what new rules the FCC will propose. They could require that the 5570 to 5680 frequency range be “notched out” for all new equipment. This would mean that we would lose the use of 110 MHz of spectrum. Another possibility is that TDWR database registration will be required of all WISPs instead the current voluntary registration for WISPs located near TDWRs. A third possibility is that all new equipment might have to automatically log into a geo-location database (similar to the TV White Space database) and receive a list of allowable frequencies. Nearby TDWR frequencies and a guard band around the TDWR frequency range would be prohibited. The FCC OET has agreed to meet with us to listen to and discuss our suggestions about ways to address the problem and what new rules should be proposed in the NPRM. I’ve prepared a short online survey for WISPA Members to see what new rules they prefer and what suggestions they have. Please take a few minutes today to review this survey and give me your feedback before I publish this survey to our Members. I expect that there will be a variety of opinions and possibly additional solutions. WISPA’s policy will be guided by whatever the majority of WISPA Members say they want. Here’s the link to the survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HPCC7BL Most of us do not want new rules and regulations however the bottom line is that we need to save this spectrum. 110 MHz of 5 GHz spectrum is too valuable to just give up. We have to fight too hard to acquire spectrum; it wouldn’t be right for all of us to lose 110 MHz of spectrum because of the actions of a few noncompliant operators. As always, thank-you for your help. Jack Unger Chair - WISPA FCC Committee 818-227-4220 -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
Copied to both lists to stimulate comments on this... done. Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Maybe then we can get the rest of the band back to non-DFS rules. And they can stop lumping 5180-5320 into these rules as well. And since we are talking about new rules... What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... On 2/8/2011 4:47 PM, Jack Unger wrote: In spite of the noteworthy efforts on the part of many WISP operators and in spite of a temporary decrease in the levels of TDWR interference reported to us by the FCC, the TDWR interference situation has unfortunately deteriorated. The FCC now reports that some locations (New York, Chicago, Denver and Dallas) that were recently “cleared” of interference are once again experiencing significant interference problems. The TDWR interference in San Juan Puerto Rico is so bad that the TDWR system had to be shut off by the FAA. This is not good news because the FAA is pushing the FCC to solve these interference problems once and for all. Voluntary database registration has unfortunately not proven to be effective enough. There are still some operators who apparently have not heard about the TDWR interference problem and some who have simply failed to bring and keep their systems in compliance. On the supply-chain side, there are several manufacturers and distributors who did take positive, affirmative and responsible action to help address the problem however they were they in the minority. Most manufacturers and distributors did not “step up to the plate” with customer education or software upgrades. Because airline safety is a very important issue, it only takes a few “bad actors” to cause significant problems for everyone else. The FCC is under strong pressure to take steps to solve the interference problem for good. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has started drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We don’t know yet what new rules the FCC will propose. They could require that the 5570 to 5680 frequency range be “notched out” for all new equipment. This would mean that we would lose the use of 110 MHz of spectrum. Another possibility is that TDWR database registration will be required of all WISPs instead the current voluntary registration for WISPs located near TDWRs. A third possibility is that all new equipment might have to automatically log into a geo-location database (similar to the TV White Space database) and receive a list of allowable frequencies. Nearby TDWR frequencies and a guard band around the TDWR frequency range would be prohibited. The FCC OET has agreed to meet with us to listen to and discuss our suggestions about ways to address the problem and what new rules should be proposed in the NPRM. I’ve prepared a short online survey for WISPA Members to see what new rules they prefer and what suggestions they have. Please take a few minutes today to review this survey and give me your feedback before I publish this survey to our Members. I expect that there will be a variety of opinions and possibly additional solutions. WISPA’s policy will be guided by whatever the majority of WISPA Members say they want. Here’s the link to the survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HPCC7BL Most of us do not want new rules and regulations however the bottom line is that we need to save this spectrum. 110 MHz of 5 GHz spectrum is too valuable to just give up. We have to fight too hard to acquire spectrum; it wouldn’t be right for all of us to lose 110 MHz of spectrum because of the actions of a few noncompliant operators. As always, thank-you for your help. Jack Unger Chair - WISPA FCC Committee 818-227-4220 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
It isn't ARIN, it is all the RIRs. And ARIN just go another /8 to divide up. That is a bunch of /22 or /23 networks. I don't think ARIN is controlled by anyone. From what I have seen in the last 6 months, they have some very strict rules and follow them. The rules do not seem to favor anyone, other than large blocks are quite expensive. The big blocks that you are referring to that are held by large organizations are usually the legacy blocks. The legacy blocks are not under direct ARIN control. Never, ever, would I want more Federal Government intervention. In following the ARIN mail lists, I am not at all concerned about legitimate requests getting addresses allocated to them. Check out this page for what they are using now: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html On 2/8/2011 12:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: The problem I see with ARIN right now is that ARIN is still controlled by the largest carriers, who own large pools with excess V4 IP space available. It is not to their benefit to preserve V4 space, when they control whats remaining. What it will mean is that many small providers will become enslaven to their upstream Tier1 providers. In my opinion this is an emergency situation, that the FCC or Feds should step in on. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to IPv4 space as happened to Domain Names, where horders extort the system to gain huge unfair profits. I recognize that large blocks are now gone. What I wonder is whether small blocks are still available at ARIN? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses At 2/7/2011 11:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Who says anything about giving up old IP space? It's not chattel property. It is merely an identifier in a protocol header, used under a voluntary agreement to exchange traffic. It was given away for free; it can be taken back. The FCC has legal authority over the North American Numbering Plan in the US, which is the *name* space for telephones. Unlike the Internet, it's not voluntary, it's regulated. About a decade ago, they ordered Number Pooling to begin. Carriers who had prefix codes with unused or under-utilized thousands blocks had to return them. Carriers today still have to file semiannual reports on number utilization. Notice how area code splits suddenly slowed to a crawl in the early part of the last decade? Number pooling did it. This was not voluntary. Your unused blocks of numbers were Reclaimed. If IANA or the RIRs wanted to do this, they could. They could simply announce that HP no longer owns Net 16 (old DEC space acquired with Compaq), for instance, effective x date, and HP should stop using it. And Halliburton and Daimler-Benz and other large-block holders should also lose unneeded space and be told to renumber. And then they should ask BGP users to respect the new assignments. Since the Internet is *voluntary*, Uncle Sam has no say; the ISP community decides who is the real owner of the space. The lawyers will, of course, try to find a way to get involved, since IPv4 address blocks *can* now be resold (to qualified buyers), so the large-block owners might see this as taking away windfall profits that they might be able to make by selling those oversized blocks. IAB made their bed, and now they'll have to sleep in it. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. A good reason to assume that anything of any interest to the general public will remain on IPv4 for the foreseeable future, and v6-only will be limited to narrow-interest activities. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Copied to both lists to stimulate comments on this... done. Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe then we can get the rest of the band back to non-DFS rules. And they can stop lumping 5180-5320 into these rules as well. It's unlikely DFS will ever go away because there are military radars throughout the 5250 - 5600 range and DFS will always be needed to avoid interfering with them. And since we are talking about new rules... What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. jack On 2/8/2011 4:47 PM, Jack Unger wrote: In spite of the noteworthy efforts on the part of many WISP operators and in spite of a temporary decrease in the levels of TDWR interference reported to us by the FCC, the TDWR interference situation has unfortunately deteriorated. The FCC now reports that some locations (New York, Chicago, Denver and Dallas) that were recently “cleared” of interference are once again experiencing significant interference problems. The TDWR interference in San Juan Puerto Rico is so bad that the TDWR system had to be shut off by the FAA. This is not good news because the FAA is pushing the FCC to solve these interference problems once and for all. Voluntary database registration has unfortunately not proven to be effective enough. There are still some operators who apparently have not heard about the TDWR interference problem and some who have simply failed to bring and keep their systems in compliance. On the supply-chain side, there are several manufacturers and distributors who did take positive, affirmative and responsible action to help address the problem however they were they in the minority. Most manufacturers and distributors did not “step up to the plate” with customer education or software upgrades. Because airline safety is a very important issue, it only takes a few “bad actors” to cause significant problems for everyone else. The FCC is under strong pressure to take steps to solve the interference problem for good. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has started drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We don’t know yet what new rules the FCC will propose. They could require that the 5570 to 5680 frequency range be “notched out” for all new equipment. This would mean that we would lose the use of 110 MHz of spectrum. Another possibility is that TDWR database registration will be required of all WISPs instead the current voluntary registration for WISPs located near TDWRs. A third possibility is that all new equipment might have to automatically log into a geo-location database (similar to the TV White Space database) and receive a list of allowable frequencies. Nearby TDWR frequencies and a guard band around the TDWR frequency range would be prohibited. The FCC OET has agreed to meet with us to listen to and discuss our suggestions about ways to address the problem and what new rules should be proposed in the NPRM. I’ve prepared a short online survey for WISPA Members to see what new rules they prefer and what suggestions they have. Please take a few minutes today to review this survey and give me your feedback before I publish this survey to our Members. I expect that there will be a variety of opinions and possibly additional solutions. WISPA’s policy will be guided by whatever the majority of WISPA Members say they want. Here’s the link to the survey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HPCC7BL Most of us do not want new rules and regulations however the bottom line is that we need to save this spectrum. 110 MHz of 5 GHz spectrum is too valuable to just give up. We have to fight too hard to acquire spectrum; it wouldn’t be right for all of us to lose 110 MHz of spectrum because of the actions of a few noncompliant operators. As always, thank-you
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
So what is the solution if you have 1000+ WiFi routers that don't support IPv6? Pretty penny to replace. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Who says you have to do anything ? What is working stays working.. yeah if you need to put a new 1000 Wifi routers.. very likely then you will need to put up the ones that support IPv6 Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 2/8/2011 5:52 PM, Carl Shivers wrote: So what is the solution if you have 1000+ WiFi routers that don't support IPv6? Pretty penny to replace. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Whats bad is 99% percent of consumer wifi routers do not support IPv6. That is going to be a HUGE issue. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Remote monitoring/ remote reboot
Hello, We've had quite a few people who may be interested, so we figured we'd bite the bullet and order 100. Hopefully some of you all will want to take them off of our hands. :) Here's the link to order them: http://www.alyrica.net/net_hatchet We're going to, (hopefully), be able to send them out by March 15th. Of course, if someone wants to help us all out and order 1000, we could get that price down a little more... :) Cheers! Kevin - Original Message - From: Kevin Sullivan To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 2:05 PM Subject: [WISPA] Remote monitoring/ remote reboot Hello, We've been working on building a remote monitoring/remote reboot board for awhile now, mostly for internal use. It runs on 9.5-55v, so we are going to be using it at some of our solar sites to monitor battery voltage and send alerts if they aren't charging, as well as the capability to remotely reboot radios. Oh, and it keeps track of temperature and turns a fan on if it gets too warm/ sends alerts at high enough temps. Anyway, we've got a couple out there, and we want to make another fifteen. However, it looks like it'll be WAY cheaper if we order 100... so we were wondering if anyone else would be interested in buying some. I think it'll be around $100 in quantity. If anyone is interested, I can send the data sheet and screencaps of the web interface. Thanks! Kevin -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Weird ubnt flash issue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok I got to tftp via the reset switch and flashed open mesh firmware on one ns2. It's happy. Attempts to flash it to another 3 ns2 boxes fail. I can tftp the image up. The LEDs blink. Then it reboots, I get a few ARP, Request who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 0.0.0.0 then nothing. Anyone seen this before? - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUdCeAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt/oQQALuqJ4iK+JxCKpvmmAWBG6EY LZXBtfF5ItG44/ql2RW++BLefWrcWmbOHrw2PHKYljmC8fzheHAhBUZXUIcPvAZj Ry6979VdlJdbsS1reN2m2Z6Se36jw8VUILLWLFokjCuxOkpUSmk5X62G6I/p2j1A DCywRECDdpefuBIKzQbeF3pAYAkIWUsGXYbX09CE+xB14PfLGy/0OtJMlOS9R1NT DzC3EOI3z+0LbyOgHGmsOs7POOy2xN4GD2EUsx80gP0bUN/ie7X7k241HeJXG1Zh h9ebQnCLgaxhsFa6eom1N9nF8wJIHXHrVTRyznHqMiJd9M9Ra//oMNgRpQXJSO/X 2LHWeUsXNJ1fjvSeXUFtl6233kqwt5eYpTe7VqnxLzR21XHtm0buz/1Oind2pzK3 dykfxfYpF45mJggmY7enYxswi+rwdFW/8lRiT9iqVUq9YPViR8PAEP/cRm9YXZa/ 9OtGB5YsLo/bszpPFGjkdHqx2BJjMGdidAUJh+ng0qWxiTwlVmK0ePX27wlxIlcX cqUdxYc1L4/FYa0swUuCDz+V9FL7ixM7bSZGGmHAh5HtBbp2YhS1mDyiS3YxAZmY aD42rjzBKTRetXjYeV3XGVLbxgJflrSTPjTvWb+atc6+Zx7AgFP9OOaN5blE/TGy D8la0KdAOmR9MzMa2VQo =W46s -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Weird ubnt flash issue
Try Clearing your Arp table do a Arp -d in a command window it most likely cached the first radio now your arp table is all messed up On 2/8/2011 5:24 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok I got to tftp via the reset switch and flashed open mesh firmware on one ns2. It's happy. Attempts to flash it to another 3 ns2 boxes fail. I can tftp the image up. The LEDs blink. Then it reboots, I get a few ARP, Request who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 0.0.0.0 then nothing. Anyone seen this before? - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUdCeAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt/oQQALuqJ4iK+JxCKpvmmAWBG6EY LZXBtfF5ItG44/ql2RW++BLefWrcWmbOHrw2PHKYljmC8fzheHAhBUZXUIcPvAZj Ry6979VdlJdbsS1reN2m2Z6Se36jw8VUILLWLFokjCuxOkpUSmk5X62G6I/p2j1A DCywRECDdpefuBIKzQbeF3pAYAkIWUsGXYbX09CE+xB14PfLGy/0OtJMlOS9R1NT DzC3EOI3z+0LbyOgHGmsOs7POOy2xN4GD2EUsx80gP0bUN/ie7X7k241HeJXG1Zh h9ebQnCLgaxhsFa6eom1N9nF8wJIHXHrVTRyznHqMiJd9M9Ra//oMNgRpQXJSO/X 2LHWeUsXNJ1fjvSeXUFtl6233kqwt5eYpTe7VqnxLzR21XHtm0buz/1Oind2pzK3 dykfxfYpF45mJggmY7enYxswi+rwdFW/8lRiT9iqVUq9YPViR8PAEP/cRm9YXZa/ 9OtGB5YsLo/bszpPFGjkdHqx2BJjMGdidAUJh+ng0qWxiTwlVmK0ePX27wlxIlcX cqUdxYc1L4/FYa0swUuCDz+V9FL7ixM7bSZGGmHAh5HtBbp2YhS1mDyiS3YxAZmY aD42rjzBKTRetXjYeV3XGVLbxgJflrSTPjTvWb+atc6+Zx7AgFP9OOaN5blE/TGy D8la0KdAOmR9MzMa2VQo =W46s -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Tim Steele supp...@nitline.com NITLine Support (574) 772-7550 ext 103 www.NITLine.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9 3vhg+UegyqimJJkMPnwKBdSrW/i2FBVDc1LHftkn1aEOjj5GamoeiAnV6umG3VbF r23XC5vvUCr3drosgprLr3FHXi2wQE+D+ToYCB+YdU3bklvHD/AJ4hTZKfM6ZDJK Vo4cNflKC28o+D9qlwvjheFflhkxf1dBl7eAJe+wvxtHXqgE/tfOig+20wRXBQea ruyD40BWNLPOCqcjafHCto3zzgTMX03hqwKqT8a+bvdqOrAoAHsZUIv7RFhOY6Xv oVMJZMDgzrZUUCq+LHBgZZ33+Xr94uABqKz+1JMjwdCPUNe8POBOU7st6RkHPjkj l+J55/xlV7KMq3eS+pvGEVFY7Vt26oPo1AHhIvdutkrkYVtWmAvcmPQAReTmUfZQ QsdGv/U/mqms2Kd0ujSaGFvQk8kwC5Nl5Hi7nnObc5nbRao53z/KiB4PGycfIiw9 N5IcL8Cay+nl+OqYYX4VdIU2laWFQh7Vst5ZH+MXk3wXvGFb0TIKexLimAdXO66Z 3kHWXYZhEUAQ+QQQ6mJLKWAly1tlmyL3FqLrUQKNpISEWpysqOuxxpBw8jlwrdaj Xq9F36fRZvj8CqyImQdPQaFQq5NKdANMHTXS5b3G8cBNF1/NJQUJb/8ecwuK2iw6 FtnI80BWXzQwIe/bfPci =3Dzr -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
+1 On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: I would question whether using 10mhz channel size would work... you probably have to go back to standard 20mhz channel sizes to make them talk... this is just a guess... Travis Microserv On 2/8/2011 9:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] NSM2 StarOS
Correct. As an aside, UBNT 5GHz doesnt like StarOS/CM9 combos which I previously used for backhauls. The trick was to make the Ubiquiti radio the AP and the StarOS the station, then it works. Glad those days are over! On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote: ... Sorry for short answer there is more info if you search the UBNT Forums. short / quick:- Don't use Airmax (Airmax off) Setup for 20mhz channels.. (other channel sizes may not be compatible). There is a bunch of ifs' and but's here.. the big question is what is it you are trying to do ? Transition ? or trying to make them all work together ? Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 2/8/2011 11:13 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've heard of several people now who are running StarOS APs who have started to use Ubiquiti products for CPE. I've tried several times and the NSM2 won't connect. What am I doing wrong? I understand Aggregate needs to be turned off on the CPE. I'm running 1.5.15.3b on the AP and I'm running 5.3 on the CPE. I'm using 10Mhz channels. I can see the AP in a site survey, but it won't associate. I've tried turning off superA/G and other special features on the AP. Can anyone think what I'm missing? Thanks, Roger WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
Charles, My new comments are preceded by jau. jack On 2/8/2011 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? jau I don't know how or if the FCC has acted on our recommendations but I'll ask them for more information when we meet with them this Friday. I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? jau That was not my comment - best to ask Blair about that. WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. jau Well, that's what one very large and responsible operator reported. Where does one see info about the violations? jau As I stated above, I don't know where the current info is published but I will ask the FCC. Is it happening on private lists or something? jau Some is on the private Phoenix email list. I think I've also seen interference posts on WISPA's lists but I don't recall the details. You can always just ask if anyone is experiencing 365 interference and see what responses people give. I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. jau We can't expect much enforcement action from the FCC on 3.65. 1) They have a very limited enforcement budget that is reserved for interference that is caused to (fully) licensed services, 2) They expect us to police ourselves, not turn to them. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. jau Yes it is vague although we supported a filing by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition last year to make it less vague. Because it is vague, it's really up to us, not the FCC. If we don't demonstrate that we can make 3.65 litely-licensed spectrum work then we should not hold out of getting any more in the future. - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9 3vhg+UegyqimJJkMPnwKBdSrW/i2FBVDc1LHftkn1aEOjj5GamoeiAnV6umG3VbF r23XC5vvUCr3drosgprLr3FHXi2wQE+D+ToYCB+YdU3bklvHD/AJ4hTZKfM6ZDJK Vo4cNflKC28o+D9qlwvjheFflhkxf1dBl7eAJe+wvxtHXqgE/tfOig+20wRXBQea ruyD40BWNLPOCqcjafHCto3zzgTMX03hqwKqT8a+bvdqOrAoAHsZUIv7RFhOY6Xv oVMJZMDgzrZUUCq+LHBgZZ33+Xr94uABqKz+1JMjwdCPUNe8POBOU7st6RkHPjkj l+J55/xlV7KMq3eS+pvGEVFY7Vt26oPo1AHhIvdutkrkYVtWmAvcmPQAReTmUfZQ QsdGv/U/mqms2Kd0ujSaGFvQk8kwC5Nl5Hi7nnObc5nbRao53z/KiB4PGycfIiw9 N5IcL8Cay+nl+OqYYX4VdIU2laWFQh7Vst5ZH+MXk3wXvGFb0TIKexLimAdXO66Z 3kHWXYZhEUAQ+QQQ6mJLKWAly1tlmyL3FqLrUQKNpISEWpysqOuxxpBw8jlwrdaj Xq9F36fRZvj8CqyImQdPQaFQq5NKdANMHTXS5b3G8cBNF1/NJQUJb/8ecwuK2iw6 FtnI80BWXzQwIe/bfPci =3Dzr -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9 3vhg+UegyqimJJkMPnwKBdSrW/i2FBVDc1LHftkn1aEOjj5GamoeiAnV6umG3VbF r23XC5vvUCr3drosgprLr3FHXi2wQE+D+ToYCB+YdU3bklvHD/AJ4hTZKfM6ZDJK Vo4cNflKC28o+D9qlwvjheFflhkxf1dBl7eAJe+wvxtHXqgE/tfOig+20wRXBQea ruyD40BWNLPOCqcjafHCto3zzgTMX03hqwKqT8a+bvdqOrAoAHsZUIv7RFhOY6Xv oVMJZMDgzrZUUCq+LHBgZZ33+Xr94uABqKz+1JMjwdCPUNe8POBOU7st6RkHPjkj l+J55/xlV7KMq3eS+pvGEVFY7Vt26oPo1AHhIvdutkrkYVtWmAvcmPQAReTmUfZQ QsdGv/U/mqms2Kd0ujSaGFvQk8kwC5Nl5Hi7nnObc5nbRao53z/KiB4PGycfIiw9 N5IcL8Cay+nl+OqYYX4VdIU2laWFQh7Vst5ZH+MXk3wXvGFb0TIKexLimAdXO66Z 3kHWXYZhEUAQ+QQQ6mJLKWAly1tlmyL3FqLrUQKNpISEWpysqOuxxpBw8jlwrdaj Xq9F36fRZvj8CqyImQdPQaFQq5NKdANMHTXS5b3G8cBNF1/NJQUJb/8ecwuK2iw6 FtnI80BWXzQwIe/bfPci =3Dzr -END PGP SIGNATURE- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) "bootleggers" using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? I mentioned this a month or two back... In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found 3.65 gear in use. Especially, UBNT NSM365 gear used as PtP to link up house to barn and so on... I have proposed that equipment sellers be required to check for an FCC license before selling 3.65 gear. I also KNOW of a WISP that was planning on deploying 3.65 gear without a license at all. - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? I mentioned this a month or two back... In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found 3.65 gear in use. That is not good. We need a way to shut them down. How many man hours does it take to do this? I wonder if there is a boiler plate cease and desist that could be worked up. If a (qualified, certified, licensed, approved, etc) wisp could report information to the FCC, and then have a letter delivered to the /site owner/ about /hardware X is generating interference Y/ and hold the site owner to the coals, would that be a acceptable solution? Especially, UBNT NSM365 gear used as PtP to link up house to barn and so on... I have proposed that equipment sellers be required to check for an FCC license before selling 3.65 gear. That should be required. It should be trivial to email a supplier the link to your license. I also KNOW
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
I do not see why we must suggest or FCC mandate a static one shoe fits all approach. The fact is, there are multiple ways to address the problem, each of which could be equally effective. As long as any one of those several options are chosen by an operator or manuacturer, problem solved. Why not support and enable choice? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? I mentioned this a month or two back... In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found 3.65 gear in use. That is not good. We need a way to shut them down. How many man hours does it take to do
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
If you are stuck - you can change your network topology a bit. 1. Do IPv4 internally using Internal Network addresses. 2. Only give the public IPv4 address to folks who pay for it meet ARIN justification for the IP (amazing how that helps quite a bit ;-) ) 3. Utilize a public IP for those Natted clients 4. Utilize a 6to4 tunnelbroker (unless you have your own IPv6 dual stack running.) both SixXs and HE.net offer this service and provide FREE BGP routing if needed as well. 5. Run your own 6to4Nat implementation. While its a little bit of a struggle to get there - you can do 1to1 Nat worse case - well technically IPv6 does not support NAT - so let us call it what it really is - it's a private tunnel. By building your own tunnel and using at minimum linux 2.6.22 or above (older kernel will simply not work) - you can utilize the iproute2 package and voila - your problems are solved (well it takes work... ) Cisco routers support automatic 6to4 ISATAP as does Vyatta and many other routers now. I did a posting recently to UBNT asking when we can expect IPv6 from them - asked for a drop dead date... sadly have not seen that yet ;-( instead got a coming soon - a few months response. One important note - there are disadvantages of 6to4 relays such as the probability of asymmetric routing so unless you know what your doing - stick with Sixxs (if based in Europe) or HE.net (if US based) as a broker. On the plus side - my tunnel from Hurricane Electric www.HE.net (free) is actually lower latency to some parts of the world than my IPv4 route and almost always less hops. We have some servers @ Linode, some in our own data center here in Ohio, some in Texas and others in the UK - and the IPv6 Tunnel does some wonders for latency and routing between them ;-) This may be due to the fact that HE is on of the top 10 (actually # 6) networks in regards to peering. Currently according to fixed orbit - HE.net has 1385 networks it peers with - (More than Sprint, More than Road Runner - More than Comcast... and are beat out only by a few others. (to note the top 10 are as follows:) #1 Level 3 with 2703 peers #2 Cogent with 2696 peers (and folks keep bashing them saying their peering sucks... go figure) #3 ATT with 2332 peers #4 MCI/Verizon with 2009 peers #5 Global Crossing with 1390 peers #6 - HE.net with 1385 peers #7 Qwest with 1377 peers #8 TW Telecom Holdings (not Time Warner Cable / Road Runner ) with 1326 peers #9 Sprint with 1316 peers # 10 Init 7 AG with 958 peers (note those are direct peers ) On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Who says you have to do anything ? What is working stays working.. yeah if you need to put a new 1000 Wifi routers.. very likely then you will need to put up the ones that support IPv6 Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 2/8/2011 5:52 PM, Carl Shivers wrote: So what is the solution if you have 1000+ WiFi routers that don't support IPv6? Pretty penny to replace. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6
Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed
That would be great. What options do you see? DFS2 looks to have not got the job done. No one knows how the GPS+DB stuff will really look, or the costs it will add. The simplest way to do GPS would be to make a serial receive port. The DB part would be a pretty simple script. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: I do not see why we must suggest or FCC mandate a static one shoe fits all approach. The fact is, there are multiple ways to address the problem, each of which could be equally effective. As long as any one of those several options are chosen by an operator or manuacturer, problem solved. Why not support and enable choice? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis the...@wmwisp.net wrote: Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@knownelement.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot after the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. I agree with this totally. Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. That would be nice to see for many reasons. Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database... Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system... I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? Very true. What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there... Why? WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There are also more and more illegal (unlicensed) bootleggers using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. H. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the RO. Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Actually, I just got done reading the ARIN website notes on the topic. My bad... Still plenty of IPv4 space available for allocation in ARIN's pool. Just IANA ran out. Actually not true either. IANA just allocated the last pool, before they were required to only allocate smaller blocks equally between all RIRs, from the remaining pools. But I dont think it hurt to have a momentary panic, to remind us that IPv4 could run out before to long. I also didn;t mean any of my past statements to be a negative attack on ARIN current performance. I have no problems with it's leaders. However when ARIN's Pool is depleted, there will likely be much controversy on whats legal to re-assign IPs. A constant ongoing effort has occured to try to elect members of the board from diverse stakeholders, so ARIN is not only controlled by the Large Carriers owning the largest IP Blocks. And just like there was a war to own domain names, there will be an attempt to capitalize on IPv4 space in demand. People will exploit the opportunity if they can. The Blackmarket for IP space is a real possibilty. I can see it now BAckroom deals and auctions to encourage a transfer of IP space from one to the other. UNless ARIN makes rules to prevent it. Whether that is the case may be determined by how quickly ISPs and MAnufacturers fully embrace IPv6. Obviously if no one ends up needing IPv4 anymore, than it wont be a problem. We'll see. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses It isn't ARIN, it is all the RIRs. And ARIN just go another /8 to divide up. That is a bunch of /22 or /23 networks. I don't think ARIN is controlled by anyone. From what I have seen in the last 6 months, they have some very strict rules and follow them. The rules do not seem to favor anyone, other than large blocks are quite expensive. The big blocks that you are referring to that are held by large organizations are usually the legacy blocks. The legacy blocks are not under direct ARIN control. Never, ever, would I want more Federal Government intervention. In following the ARIN mail lists, I am not at all concerned about legitimate requests getting addresses allocated to them. Check out this page for what they are using now: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html On 2/8/2011 12:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: The problem I see with ARIN right now is that ARIN is still controlled by the largest carriers, who own large pools with excess V4 IP space available. It is not to their benefit to preserve V4 space, when they control whats remaining. What it will mean is that many small providers will become enslaven to their upstream Tier1 providers. In my opinion this is an emergency situation, that the FCC or Feds should step in on. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to IPv4 space as happened to Domain Names, where horders extort the system to gain huge unfair profits. I recognize that large blocks are now gone. What I wonder is whether small blocks are still available at ARIN? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldsteinfgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses At 2/7/2011 11:34 AM, Matt wrote: No, it's not a real problem. I liken it to the exhaust of homesteads in the past century. You used to be able to go to a land office and ask for your 40 acres. Then they ran out. But you could still buy a farm from somebody who previously had a homestead. Very few are going to give up there 'old' IP space without wanting a high price if at all. I know I won't, any one else going too? Like most ISP's we grow every year not shrink. I see this as a real problem. I imagine we will dual stack soon and when the pinch comes give lower tier users a NAT'ed IPv4 IP and a /48 or /64 of IPv6 space. I hate the idea of handing out NAT'ed IP space though. Too hard to tell who did what. My opinion is there should be a very hard push to IPv6. Who says anything about giving up old IP space? It's not chattel property. It is merely an identifier in a protocol header, used under a voluntary agreement to exchange traffic. It was given away for free; it can be taken back. The FCC has legal authority over the North American Numbering Plan in the US, which is the *name* space for telephones. Unlike the Internet, it's not voluntary, it's regulated. About a decade ago, they ordered Number Pooling to begin. Carriers who had prefix codes with unused or under-utilized thousands blocks had to return them. Carriers today still have to file semiannual reports on
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
yup It is kinda like this A storm is coming - and all the quikymarts go to the local Acme, Kroger and Walmarts and purchase all the milk and bread. Now you have to go to the local quikymart if you want more IP's (well its almost that way but not just yet) On Feb 9, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: when ARIN's Pool is depleted, there will likely be much controversy on whats legal to re-assign IPs. A constant ongoing effort has occured to try to elect members of the board from diverse stakeholders, so ARIN is not only controlled by the Large Carriers owning the largest IP Blocks. And just like there was a war to own domain names, there will be an attempt to capitalize on IPv4 space in demand. People will exploit the opportunity if they can. The Blackmarket for IP space is a real possibilty. I can see it now BAckroom deals and auctions to encourage a transfer of IP space from one to the other. UNless ARIN makes rules to prevent it. Whether that is the case may be determined by how quickly ISPs and MAnufacturers fully embrace IPv6. Obviously if no one ends up needing IPv4 anymore, than it wont be a problem. We'll see. _ Glenn Kelley | Principal | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses
Nice post Glenn. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Glenn Kelley To: fai...@snappydsl.net ; WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses If you are stuck - you can change your network topology a bit. 1. Do IPv4 internally using Internal Network addresses. 2. Only give the public IPv4 address to folks who pay for it meet ARIN justification for the IP (amazing how that helps quite a bit ;-) ) 3. Utilize a public IP for those Natted clients 4. Utilize a 6to4 tunnelbroker (unless you have your own IPv6 dual stack running.) both SixXs and HE.net offer this service and provide FREE BGP routing if needed as well. 5. Run your own 6to4Nat implementation. While its a little bit of a struggle to get there - you can do 1to1 Nat worse case - well technically IPv6 does not support NAT - so let us call it what it really is - it's a private tunnel. By building your own tunnel and using at minimum linux 2.6.22 or above (older kernel will simply not work) - you can utilize the iproute2 package and voila - your problems are solved (well it takes work... ) Cisco routers support automatic 6to4 ISATAP as does Vyatta and many other routers now. I did a posting recently to UBNT asking when we can expect IPv6 from them - asked for a drop dead date... sadly have not seen that yet ;-( instead got a coming soon - a few months response. One important note - there are disadvantages of 6to4 relays such as the probability of asymmetric routing so unless you know what your doing - stick with Sixxs (if based in Europe) or HE.net (if US based) as a broker. On the plus side - my tunnel from Hurricane Electric www.HE.net (free) is actually lower latency to some parts of the world than my IPv4 route and almost always less hops. We have some servers @ Linode, some in our own data center here in Ohio, some in Texas and others in the UK - and the IPv6 Tunnel does some wonders for latency and routing between them ;-) This may be due to the fact that HE is on of the top 10 (actually # 6) networks in regards to peering. Currently according to fixed orbit - HE.net has 1385 networks it peers with - (More than Sprint, More than Road Runner - More than Comcast... and are beat out only by a few others. (to note the top 10 are as follows:) #1 Level 3 with 2703 peers #2 Cogent with 2696 peers (and folks keep bashing them saying their peering sucks... go figure) #3 ATT with 2332 peers #4 MCI/Verizon with 2009 peers #5 Global Crossing with 1390 peers #6 - HE.net with 1385 peers #7 Qwest with 1377 peers #8 TW Telecom Holdings (not Time Warner Cable / Road Runner ) with 1326 peers #9 Sprint with 1316 peers # 10 Init 7 AG with 958 peers (note those are direct peers ) On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Who says you have to do anything ? What is working stays working.. yeah if you need to put a new 1000 Wifi routers.. very likely then you will need to put up the ones that support IPv6 Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 2/8/2011 5:52 PM, Carl Shivers wrote: So what is the solution if you have 1000+ WiFi routers that don't support IPv6? Pretty penny to replace. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses There was a requirement to use with IP allocation. (would need more within 3 months, if not allocated, or something like that). There is a legal basis to make IP holders return IPs that they are not using, or will not use within X months. Selling it on the secondary market is not the intent of the ARIN original rules, regardless of what recent decissions ARIN may have made.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Runs Out Of IP Addresses Probably not directed towards ISPs, but to other organizations. http://fixedorbit.com/stats.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml GE probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs. HP probably doesn't need 33M+ IPs. Ford probably doesn't need 16M+ IPs.. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/7/2011 10:34 AM, Matt wrote:
