Marlon,
You mean to tell me you read this report and that was the only comment
you could come with?
Please point out where you got the idea that the city of San Francisco
was paying for this network.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Whoa, hold the phone there Haus.
I though
It is. SF has no financial investment at all. They just get a free
ubiquitous network covering their city, like many other cities already have.
As far as the 300k free tier goes, 300 k is fine if you had nothing. What do
they think, that the dial up people had free dialup already?
Fiber to the p
Can anyone hit this address:
7003 Presidents Drive
Orlando FL 32809
--
Regards,
Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884
http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.w
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It is. SF has no financial investment at all. They just get a free
>ubiquitous network covering their city, like many other cities already have.
>As far as the 300k free tier goes, 300 k is fine if you had nothing. What do
>they think, that the dial up people had
First page, first paragraph.
No I've not read the whole thing yet. I've got family and customers to take
care of first. I'm also working on the next wisp fcc meetings. Working on
getting a meeting with the broadband group at the ftc and talking to the fbi
about calea (more on that in anothe
Hi All,
I've finally found the folks at the FBI that we need to talk to. We'll have
a lot more info soon. We've also got Kris and Larry working on
documentation for us.
First, CALEA is NOT a data retention requirement. Do do NOT have to
routinely store any customer data in order to be com
I've got one from Inscape data. It works very well. I've also got one of
the DLINK ones from 3 or 4 years ago. I hope they are better now, I never
did get the other one to FTP alarm images to anyone. Finally gave the cam
away.
laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
I am working on a CALEA solution that will be available by subscription by a
third party vendor. We will be working out the details in the next few
weeks. The deadline for CALEA compliance is May 14, 2007. This is a
federal mandate imposed on all ISP's and with my understanding has no
funding av
Marlon,
I have the paragraph you referred to below. It says that the city is
going to conduct a feasibility study to see if it was possible for the
city to pay for and run the network. It does not say the city has funded
any network what so ever.
"The Budget Analyst’s Office has been directe
Easy there, Dawn.
Muni wireless is just one of those topics like gay marriage -- it fires
up the constiuency.
Like everything else, every one has the right to his/her opinion without
getting personal (or political), no matter how wrong that opinion may be.
- Peter
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
I
Anyone have suggestions on what I need to do to allow my customer to
do this type of VPN. I currently have customers behind my
linux/iptables firewall that masquerades them out a single IP. This
is the first customer who is having problems. Do I need a special
rule to accomodate them??
The cu
Peter,
I would agree with what you have to say about opinions but this was not
opinion. It was a statement based on a misunderstanding of what was
written in a public document about a high profile project.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Peter R. wrote:
Easy there, Dawn.
Muni wireless is just one
You have to create a rule to allow the GRE tunnel back to your customer
from the VPN Server IP. Are you forwarding ALL public IP traffic to his
private IP?
I believe it is Protocol 47 or something like that. You also need to
allow certain udp ports through but I don't remember off the top of my
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, rabbtux rabbtux wrote:
Anyone have suggestions on what I need to do to allow my customer
to do this type of VPN. I currently have customers behind my
linux/iptables firewall that masquerades them out a single IP.
This is the first customer who is having problems. Do I ne
Kimo- please explain what Webnetic is.
Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions:
1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in
Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of
the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the
Where do they guarantee anon usage? I have used both Sunnyvale and Santa
Clara and had to sign up to use it.
No one is going to allow anon usage! Too many things can happen when users
do bad things.
If you were in this business, you would understand.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PRO
A "Standard" Ipsec VPN will use GRE, protocol 47:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers
It's not UDP.
It appears that CenterBeam VPN uses Cisco gear:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/prod_121201.html
If this is the case, then they should be able to encapsulate this into UDP
or IP and t
Ok to Clarify, here is what EPIC says about MetroFi's Privacy policy:
MetroFi proposes an advertising-supported service with a 1 Mbps connection, or
the same connection without advertisements for $20 a month.
As with many companies operating under self-regulatory privacy norms, MetroFi's
privac
She don't like us anymore. lol
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Trangos
hey, you are back! I was wondering where you've been
Sounds simple enough. Any MT can stream packets a packet capture device.
As far as VPN, that's simple, etc. So, the only thing that it would require
is double the customers bandwidth during the time they were monitored.
Unless you had a box to store it locally and then ship that off via dvd or
so
Ya, I have been selling the inscape webcams for a while. They work quite
well, simple and do work well. We usually use them for the wired POE
installations though. The only time I needed a wireless camera, we ended up
just putting a CB3 next to the camera (already had power) and connected to
the
In case someone ddi'ent say, if they are using CISCO IPSEC, etc, what happen
is this.
1. Client requests via TCP to start a VPN session
2. Server sends back UDP packets to start the session
3. NAT/MASQ blocks these un-authed UDP packets.
The two anaswers are.
1. Tell the customer to change the
IPSEC uses the GRE, but also traverse UDP. CISCO VPN clints do use UDP,
they use GRE to do the establishment sometimes as well.The Cisco VPN
client is a pain, regardless, but there is a option for TCP connectivity.
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
I seem to remember specifically allowing this UDP years ago when I used
iptables, ipfwm and ipchains.
Once these rules were in place, the Cisco VPN (encapsulated inside UDP)
worked fine.
Frank
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Denni
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Frank wrote:
I seem to remember specifically allowing this UDP years ago when I
used iptables, ipfwm and ipchains.
I've not done a lot of research in this area, because I've always
provided public IP space to my customers. However, I suspect that
the IPSEC passthrough i
Always love you guys. You know where to find me.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:31 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Looking for Trangos
She don't like us anymo
Looking for Net to Net 6 port ds3 - Ethernet converters ...
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: ht
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
There are already standards in place on what and how to do this for
the DSL industry, cable is working on a standard. The conversation
was more technical than I can recall word for word, but it sounds like
it would be a very very good idea for us to
I have one rule that I thought would work with all NAT friendly vpns:
# Masquerade for wireless 10.10.0.0
iptables -A POSTROUTING -s 10.10.0.0/16 -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE
So is this Centerbeam VPN not 'NAT friendly'? I don't currently have
the option to pass routable IPs to customers :(
On 1/15/
My approach is a little more lazy than most firewall management people
provide, I suspect. If a customer isn't able to function within the set
of firewall rules that I have set for most of the customers, I add his
IP to a "whitelist" list of IP addresses in my firewall. These addresses
don't ge
30 matches
Mail list logo
