From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 1 07:15:20 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] software firewall appliance Message-ID: <20020701071213.D20058@real-time.com> supposedly will fit in 8MB of disk. looks like it has some useful features. http://leaf.sourceforge.net/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=908&page_id=27 Carl. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From sulrich at botwerks.org Mon Jul 1 15:05:01 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] july meeting - (07/02/2002) Message-ID: <20020701150013.A17115@botwerks.org> all- just a reminder that tomorrow night is our monthly meeting. same time (6:30PM), same bat channel (cisco bloomington office - details below). i've got some fliers for the discounts @ ORA and some folks (you know who you are) can nab some books from me if you show up. i don't have any agenda or demos this week but if there are parties with interesting topics please speak up! *LOGISTICS* ----------- time ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6:30PM CDT - june 4, 2002 location ---------------------------------------------------------------------- cisco systems - bloomington office international plaza 7900 international drive suite 400 bloomington, mn 55425 directions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- from the north -------------- * take 35w south * take 494 east to the 34th avenue exit, turn right * immediately veer right and take the next right at the light onto 80th street. * take the next immediate right onto international drive. from the south -------------- just like coming from the north except you take 35w north to 494. from the (east|west) -------------------- reaching 35w and following the above directions is left as an exercise for the reader/attendee. after you make it onto international drive ... * international plaza is the large blue glass building to your left. * you may park in the ramp and take the ramp elevators to level 1. proceed through the glass doors to your right and down the lobby foyer the main bank of elevators. take the elevator to level 4 note: you will need to sign in at the guard desk and indicate that you are there for the wireless users group meeting in the cisco office in suite 400. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020701/9ba504f2/attachment.pgp From natecars at real-time.com Tue Jul 2 10:40:39 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth Message-ID: Anyone got any Bluetooth gear? I just picked up an Ericsson T68, and it'd be interesting to see what kind of rates you can get using Bluetooth and GPRS for 'net access.. I've heard that with their compression, it can be as fast as a 56k modem. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From andyw at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 11:05:04 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] july meeting - (07/02/2002) In-Reply-To: <20020701150013.A17115@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:00:14PM -0500 References: <20020701150013.A17115@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020702105400.E8888@florence.linkmargin.com> > just a reminder that tomorrow night is our monthly meeting. same time > (6:30PM), same bat channel (cisco bloomington office - details below). > > i've got some fliers for the discounts @ ORA and some folks (you know > who you are) can nab some books from me if you show up. I can't make it tonight, I'm afraid. I've got root canal work scheduled for tomorrow, and the drugs I'm on now make me feel to sick to drive, let alone attend a meeting and converse with any clarity. If anyone else want's the books, let 'em have them first, I'll get them next time around. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Jul 2 11:35:49 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: ; from natecars@real-time.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:34:32AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:34:32AM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > Anyone got any Bluetooth gear? > > I just picked up an Ericsson T68, and it'd be interesting to see what kind > of rates you can get using Bluetooth and GPRS for 'net access.. I've heard > that with their compression, it can be as fast as a 56k modem. Sounds like a wonderful use of the 2.4ghz spectrum, not. > > -- > Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chrise at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 14:47:28 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 11:09:05AM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 11:09AM -0500), Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:34:32AM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > > Anyone got any Bluetooth gear? > > > > I just picked up an Ericsson T68, and it'd be interesting to see what kind > > of rates you can get using Bluetooth and GPRS for 'net access.. I've heard > > that with their compression, it can be as fast as a 56k modem. > > Sounds like a wonderful use of the 2.4ghz spectrum, not. No kidding. Bluetooth has been seen to take out big chunks of 802.11b WLANs and for a while, many large 802.11b sites were banning Bluetooth gadgets from their premises. The two definitely don't coexist... at least in close proximity. -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From natecars at real-time.com Tue Jul 2 14:51:36 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > Sounds like a wonderful use of the 2.4ghz spectrum, not. at least it's really really low power.. not likely to interfere with much. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From cheath at interlinkcom.com Tue Jul 2 14:53:45 2002 From: cheath at interlinkcom.com (Heath, Chandler) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:11 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? Message-ID: <43DEC38D2C1FB14F81B4B42CDDC034E830F2CF@interlink-sv1.interlinkcom.com> That would be the WorldCom MMDS Internet product. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Elmquist To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Sent: 6/28/2002 9:31 PM Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? Do we have any active wireless ISPs running in the Twin Cities? I have noticed (over the past few months) more and more small patch antennas showing up at the top of 10 or 15' masts on the roofs of office buildings and other sites around town. One in particular I had noticed, was recently changed from a patch to a mesh dish. Crude triangulation, suggests they are pointing at downtown Minneapolis. Chris -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ From chrome at real-time.com Tue Jul 2 15:38:07 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net>; from chrise@pobox.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:20:39PM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com> > No kidding. Bluetooth has been seen to take out big chunks of 802.11b > WLANs and for a while, many large 802.11b sites were banning > Bluetooth gadgets from their premises. The two definitely don't > coexist... at least in close proximity. is this just a matter of channel collision or what? bluetooth seems like too good a thing, to make me want to pass it up. if it can be made to coexist nicely with 802.11b, I'd like to know how. maybe this would be a good topic for a TCWUG meeting? Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From nryberg at uspsoig.gov Tue Jul 2 15:56:02 2002 From: nryberg at uspsoig.gov (nryberg@uspsoig.gov) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? Message-ID: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A973@POPEYE> Just browsing through the Worldcom website, they had fact sheets on it, but other than southern cities, they hadn't really rolled anything out yet... wonder if it'll be affected by their current economic status. -----Original Message----- From: Heath, Chandler [mailto:cheath@interlinkcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:22 PM To: 'tcwug-list@tcwug.org ' Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? That would be the WorldCom MMDS Internet product. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Elmquist To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Sent: 6/28/2002 9:31 PM Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? Do we have any active wireless ISPs running in the Twin Cities? I have noticed (over the past few months) more and more small patch antennas showing up at the top of 10 or 15' masts on the roofs of office buildings and other sites around town. One in particular I had noticed, was recently changed from a patch to a mesh dish. Crude triangulation, suggests they are pointing at downtown Minneapolis. Chris -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From chrise at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 16:17:03 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com>; from chrome@real-time.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:08:34PM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com> Message-ID: <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net> On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 03:08PM -0500), Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > No kidding. Bluetooth has been seen to take out big chunks of 802.11b > > WLANs and for a while, many large 802.11b sites were banning > > Bluetooth gadgets from their premises. The two definitely don't > > coexist... at least in close proximity. > > is this just a matter of channel collision or what? I think it's primarily an issue of front-end overload. Whenever you have a high power transmitter (relative to the received signal strength) operating in the same passband, nearby, there isn't much you can do to keep it from desensing your receiver's frontend. So, the bluetooth transmitter basically steps on anything the 802.11b card might receive. Even though they are spread-spectrum, they also have a dynamic range which, in order to keep the cost at a point we are still interested in, is not what it could be in order to keep out the offending signal(s). You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN equipment right to zero... even though they are on different "channels" and use different spreading sequences, they're in the same passband and the poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. This is the basis for the argument that XM Satellite Radio and Sirius were making when they claimed that 802.11b stuff was screwing up their satellite radio service-- because they basically have designed such poor receivers (in order to keep the cost really low) that they can't reject out of band signals 50 MHz away. The cheaper they go, the more they let in. The closer the signals are in frequency, the more it costs to keep the offending ones out. If they're on the same frequency, as with 802.11b and Bluetooth, you can see the challenge. > bluetooth seems like too good a thing, to make me want to pass it up. if it > can be made to coexist nicely with 802.11b, I'd like to know how. maybe this > would be a good topic for a TCWUG meeting? Hmm... move your 802.11b to 5.7 GHz ? :-) -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From andyw at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 16:17:13 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? In-Reply-To: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A973@POPEYE>; from nryberg@uspsoig.gov on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:35:43PM -0400 References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A973@POPEYE> Message-ID: <20020702161105.K8888@florence.linkmargin.com> nryberg@uspsoig.gov wrote: > Just browsing through the Worldcom website, they had fact sheets on it, but > other than southern cities, they hadn't really rolled anything out yet... > wonder if it'll be affected by their current economic status. They were supposedly already exiting the MMDS business due to it's undisguisable loss-making characteristics. Windstar and others were ahead of them in line for the exit. Have a good meeting tonight. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From nryberg at uspsoig.gov Tue Jul 2 16:42:30 2002 From: nryberg at uspsoig.gov (nryberg@uspsoig.gov) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? Message-ID: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A977@POPEYE> Loss making financially or technically? Meaning, would they lose cash or just not be able to deliver the service as advertised... -----Original Message----- From: Andy Warner [mailto:andyw@pobox.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:11 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? nryberg@uspsoig.gov wrote: > Just browsing through the Worldcom website, they had fact sheets on it, but > other than southern cities, they hadn't really rolled anything out yet... > wonder if it'll be affected by their current economic status. They were supposedly already exiting the MMDS business due to it's undisguisable loss-making characteristics. Windstar and others were ahead of them in line for the exit. Have a good meeting tonight. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From natecars at real-time.com Tue Jul 2 16:43:54 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Chris Elmquist wrote: > I think it's primarily an issue of front-end overload. Whenever you > Even though they are spread-spectrum, they also have a dynamic range > which, in order to keep the cost at a point we are still interested > in, is not what it could be in order to keep out the offending > signal(s). > > You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless > phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN > equipment right to zero... even though they are on different > "channels" and use different spreading sequences, they're in the same > passband and the poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. I've got 2 separate 2.4ghz phone systems at home, and don't see any interference with my 2 802.11b AP's.. 'course, the phones are the frequency-hopping type (FHSS?), so that could be why I don't get interference there. I also didn't get any interference with either the phones or the wireless 'net when I turned bluetooth to 'discoverable' on my phone last night, but that may be because it's not actually putting anything out. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From andyw at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 17:06:12 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Wireless ISPs in Twin Cities? In-Reply-To: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A977@POPEYE>; from nryberg@uspsoig.gov on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:28:25PM -0400 References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018A977@POPEYE> Message-ID: <20020702170104.L8888@florence.linkmargin.com> nryberg@uspsoig.gov wrote: > Loss making financially or technically? Meaning, would they lose cash or > just not be able to deliver the service as advertised... $$$ -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From joel at helgeson.com Tue Jul 2 17:06:51 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c22214$45e48650$2802a8c0@SECURITY> The reason your wireless phones aren't interfering with your WiFi network is because your phones are Frequency Hopping (FHSS). Bluetooth is also FHSS, and will only interfere with WiFi networks if there are large numbers or a large concentration of Bluetooth devices in any given area. This is because you'll have so many individual devices all hopping to their on hop pattern. (Except the ones that are talking directly to each other.) For the most part, Bluetooth and 802.11a will coexist quite peacefully, neither stomping on each other. Regards, Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Nate Carlson Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:43 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Bluetooth On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Chris Elmquist wrote: > I think it's primarily an issue of front-end overload. Whenever you > Even though they are spread-spectrum, they also have a dynamic range > which, in order to keep the cost at a point we are still interested > in, is not what it could be in order to keep out the offending > signal(s). > > You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless > phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN > equipment right to zero... even though they are on different > "channels" and use different spreading sequences, they're in the same > passband and the poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. I've got 2 separate 2.4ghz phone systems at home, and don't see any interference with my 2 802.11b AP's.. 'course, the phones are the frequency-hopping type (FHSS?), so that could be why I don't get interference there. I also didn't get any interference with either the phones or the wireless 'net when I turned bluetooth to 'discoverable' on my phone last night, but that may be because it's not actually putting anything out. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Jul 2 21:29:35 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net>; from chrise@pobox.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:09:22PM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com> <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: <20020702210800.I31559@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Chris Elmquist wrote: [snip] > You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless > phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN equipment > right to zero... even though they are on different "channels" and use > different spreading sequences, they're in the same passband and the > poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. Strangely enough my 2.4ghz phone (made by GE) seems incapable of causing interference with my wireless, and the lan doesn't cause any problems with my phone (no static whatsoever) the phone has a range of just over 100 yards, and the Access Point/Phone Base station are only seperated by about 10 feet =) > Hmm... move your 802.11b to 5.7 GHz ? :-) Less range, more expensive. > Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Jul 2 21:30:13 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <000001c22214$45e48650$2802a8c0@SECURITY>; from joel@helgeson.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:03:16PM -0500 References: <000001c22214$45e48650$2802a8c0@SECURITY> Message-ID: <20020702211020.J31559@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > For the most part, Bluetooth and 802.11a will coexist quite peacefully, > neither stomping on each other. I think you need plain vanilla 802.11, such as the 3mbit breezecom equipment (FHSS), unless there's something in the 802.11a specs that I haven't heard about =p > > Regards, > > Joel -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chrise at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 22:45:35 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702210800.I31559@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:08:00PM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com> <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702210800.I31559@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020702215752.D12779@n0jcf.net> On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 09:08PM -0500), Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Chris Elmquist wrote: > > [snip] > > > You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless > > phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN equipment > > right to zero... even though they are on different "channels" and use > > different spreading sequences, they're in the same passband and the > > poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. > > Strangely enough my 2.4ghz phone (made by GE) seems incapable of causing > interference with my wireless, and the lan doesn't cause any problems > with my phone (no static whatsoever) the phone has a range of just over 100 > yards, and the Access Point/Phone Base station are only seperated by about > 10 feet =) well, I am sure this is an issue where YMMV. I have had two different 2.4 GHz phones... a Panasonic and a Sony... and both completely wiped out my 802.11b network whenever the phone(s) were off-hook. You could get some improvement with a huge seperation between the handset and the wireless node but it was IMPOSSIBLE to use the 802.11b LAN in a laptop while simultaneously talking on the cordless phone. I could watch the signal meter on the Orinoco client app and as soon as the phone went off hook, the signal meter went to zero in a heartbeat. There was no half-power or partly degraded link... that baby went to absolute zero instantly. Before I traded the phone for a 900 MHz model, the best I could do was to have the AP (an Apple Airport) no more than 8' from the laptop. I played with channels, 'microwave robustness' and even antenna polarization and still couldn't get there. So, I became a big fan of 900 MHz cordless phones :-) > > Hmm... move your 802.11b to 5.7 GHz ? :-) > > Less range, more expensive. well, I was thinking more along the lines of a transverter (ie, transmit/ receive converter) that would allow you to run 802.11b protocol except on 5.7 GHz-- rather than 802.11a. You can buy these... they are used for backbone hops and point to point links but of course it's more cost than the straight 802.11b gear. It would be cheaper and much more convenient to get a 900 MHz cordless phone :-) -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From chrise at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 22:49:27 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702211020.J31559@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:10:20PM -0500 References: <000001c22214$45e48650$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <20020702211020.J31559@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020702221937.E12779@n0jcf.net> On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 09:10PM -0500), Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > > > For the most part, Bluetooth and 802.11a will coexist quite peacefully, > > neither stomping on each other. > > I think you need plain vanilla 802.11, such as the 3mbit breezecom > equipment (FHSS), unless there's something in the 802.11a specs that I haven't > heard about =p I'm quite curious about the coexistance statements being made now about Bluetooth and 802.11b since apparently something has changed. About four years ago the literature (RF Design, Microwaves and RF, others) were full of stories about early Bluetooth devices wiping out 802.11b systems due to fundamental overload. My greatest recollection was as I mentioned in my earlier post regarding large 802.11b installations making sure no Bluetooth devices (of which there were few on the market) where used on the premis because they would take down the wireless nodes in close proximity. The scenario was someone sitting across the conference table from you, using a Bluetooth headset with his cellphone, and keeping you from accessing the corporate network over 802.11b. Which piece changed? The Bluetooth or the 802.11b? and how? I find this reference, which suggests some approaches to coexistance (like turning on system off while the other is operating) yet definitely highlights the interference problems: http://www.planetanalog.com/features/OEG20010226S0036 "When both technologies are operating at the same time, but are separated by more than 3 meters, they don't typically interfere with one another to a great degree. However, within 3 m, and especially within one-half a meter, they can degrade each other's performance significantly. This is particularly relevant to devices such as laptops or Internet appliances enabled with both technologies, as they will have far less than one-half a meter separating the two." Chris -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From joel at helgeson.com Tue Jul 2 22:50:36 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702210800.I31559@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <000001c22242$1a50e410$2802a8c0@SECURITY> I meant to write 802.11b on my comment back there. Where were you tonight, you weren't at the TCWUG meeting. I brought some laptops for you. :) Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 9:08 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Bluetooth On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 04:09:22PM -0500, Chris Elmquist wrote: [snip] > You get the same behavior often when trying to run a 2.4 GHz cordless > phone near your 802.11b stuff. The phone just knocks the WLAN equipment > right to zero... even though they are on different "channels" and use > different spreading sequences, they're in the same passband and the > poor receiver gets nailed by the nearby transmitter. Strangely enough my 2.4ghz phone (made by GE) seems incapable of causing interference with my wireless, and the lan doesn't cause any problems with my phone (no static whatsoever) the phone has a range of just over 100 yards, and the Access Point/Phone Base station are only seperated by about 10 feet =) > Hmm... move your 802.11b to 5.7 GHz ? :-) Less range, more expensive. > Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From chrise at pobox.com Tue Jul 2 22:50:55 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702221937.E12779@n0jcf.net>; from chrise@pobox.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:19:37PM -0500 References: <000001c22214$45e48650$2802a8c0@SECURITY> <20020702211020.J31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702221937.E12779@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: <20020702223657.F12779@n0jcf.net> On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 10:19PM -0500), Chris Elmquist wrote: > On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 09:10PM -0500), Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > > > > > For the most part, Bluetooth and 802.11a will coexist quite peacefully, > > > neither stomping on each other. > > > > I think you need plain vanilla 802.11, such as the 3mbit breezecom > > equipment (FHSS), unless there's something in the 802.11a specs that I haven't > > heard about =p > > I'm quite curious about the coexistance statements being made now > about Bluetooth and 802.11b since apparently something has changed. > > About four years ago the literature (RF Design, Microwaves and RF, others) > were full of stories about early Bluetooth devices wiping out 802.11b > systems due to fundamental overload. My greatest recollection was > as I mentioned in my earlier post regarding large 802.11b installations > making sure no Bluetooth devices (of which there were few on the market) > where used on the premis because they would take down the wireless > nodes in close proximity. The scenario was someone sitting across the > conference table from you, using a Bluetooth headset with his cellphone, > and keeping you from accessing the corporate network over 802.11b. > > Which piece changed? The Bluetooth or the 802.11b? and how? > > I find this reference, which suggests some approaches to coexistance > (like turning on system off while the other is operating) yet definitely > highlights the interference problems: > > http://www.planetanalog.com/features/OEG20010226S0036 > > "When both technologies are operating at the same time, but are separated by > more than 3 meters, they don't typically interfere with one another to a > great degree. However, within 3 m, and especially within one-half a meter, > they can degrade each other's performance significantly. This is particularly > relevant to devices such as laptops or Internet appliances enabled with both > technologies, as they will have far less than one-half a meter separating > the two." Just to keep beating this horse... here is another reference that goes into the gory technical details of how and why the interference between these two systems is likely: http://www.mobilian.com/documents/Characterizing_the_Problem.pdf it should be noted that Mobilian are (or have) developed a hybrid PHY that can handle both 802.11b and Bluetooth simultaneously in the same silicon. They are pushing this as a solution to the close-in coexistance problem. They did a good analysis of the interference issue in this paper though, IMO. Chris -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Jul 3 07:35:16 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702215752.D12779@n0jcf.net>; from chrise@pobox.com on Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:57:52PM -0500 References: <20020702110905.F31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702122039.F14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702150834.I13487@real-time.com> <20020702160922.G14037@n0jcf.net> <20020702210800.I31559@techmonkeys.org> <20020702215752.D12779@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: <20020703070558.K31559@techmonkeys.org> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:57:52PM -0500, Chris Elmquist wrote: > well, I am sure this is an issue where YMMV. I have had two different > 2.4 GHz phones... a Panasonic and a Sony... and both completely wiped > out my 802.11b network whenever the phone(s) were off-hook. You could > get some improvement with a huge seperation between the handset and the > wireless node but it was IMPOSSIBLE to use the 802.11b LAN in a laptop > while simultaneously talking on the cordless phone. > > I could watch the signal meter on the Orinoco client app and > as soon as the phone went off hook, the signal meter went to zero > in a heartbeat. There was no half-power or partly degraded link... > that baby went to absolute zero instantly. yikes! i've actually attempted to cause interference with my AP by placing the phone (off-hook) right next to the AP, then again right next to one of the client cards, no degredation whatsoever. (According to the noise/signal/quality meters) Searching for the model # for my phone actually found this PPT presentation: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/2001/Jan01/01084r0P802-15_TG2-IEEE-802.11b-and-Bluetooth-Coexistence-Testing-Results.ppt Yes, OpenOffice can read this =) Interesting stuff. > > -- > Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From joel at helgeson.com Wed Jul 3 09:05:33 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bluetooth In-Reply-To: <20020702221937.E12779@n0jcf.net> Message-ID: <000001c22299$3048e720$2802a8c0@SECURITY> I have my AP set on channel 1. Occasionally when I pick up my 2.4ghz phone it'll knock me of my wlan. All I have to do is hit the channel button on the phone and it'll pick right back up. If I pick up the phone, and it uses channel 2, it's only partially overlapping my signal (as you may recall, WLANs use 3 channels or 22mhz wide swaths of bandwidth) it'll drop my throughput/signal quality to 5.5mbps. I think what is happening is that the cordless phone detects a strong signal on channel 1, and selects it to xmit on that channel. I really should get rid of that phone and get a FHSS or a 900mhz. 900mhz is much better for cordless phones anyway (Better range)... Regards, Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Chris Elmquist Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:20 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Bluetooth On Tuesday (07/02/2002 at 09:10PM -0500), Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:03:16PM -0500, Joel R. Helgeson wrote: > > > For the most part, Bluetooth and 802.11a will coexist quite peacefully, > > neither stomping on each other. > > I think you need plain vanilla 802.11, such as the 3mbit breezecom > equipment (FHSS), unless there's something in the 802.11a specs that I haven't > heard about =p I'm quite curious about the coexistance statements being made now about Bluetooth and 802.11b since apparently something has changed. About four years ago the literature (RF Design, Microwaves and RF, others) were full of stories about early Bluetooth devices wiping out 802.11b systems due to fundamental overload. My greatest recollection was as I mentioned in my earlier post regarding large 802.11b installations making sure no Bluetooth devices (of which there were few on the market) where used on the premis because they would take down the wireless nodes in close proximity. The scenario was someone sitting across the conference table from you, using a Bluetooth headset with his cellphone, and keeping you from accessing the corporate network over 802.11b. Which piece changed? The Bluetooth or the 802.11b? and how? I find this reference, which suggests some approaches to coexistance (like turning on system off while the other is operating) yet definitely highlights the interference problems: http://www.planetanalog.com/features/OEG20010226S0036 "When both technologies are operating at the same time, but are separated by more than 3 meters, they don't typically interfere with one another to a great degree. However, within 3 m, and especially within one-half a meter, they can degrade each other's performance significantly. This is particularly relevant to devices such as laptops or Internet appliances enabled with both technologies, as they will have far less than one-half a meter separating the two." Chris -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From sulrich at botwerks.org Wed Jul 3 09:42:53 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:12 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] meeting notes (07/02/2002) - tres brief Message-ID: <20020703084140.A2022@botwerks.org> all- the notes are really short this month. we had just a handful of us at the meeting this evening. - interested parties received the flyers from ORA - there was some brief discussion re: wiki tools (twiki being a very slick wiki package that i found) - there was some discussion regarding the history of the wireless certifications that have been under development and the parties behind them. - some brief discussion regarding the - jeff lehman provided a tour of his car which is very tricked out for war driving and calling in air strikes with his precision GPS system. - the meeting was adjourned early and non-technical boy-band-alikes in tire squealing small pickups were informed that we were stormtrackers. no doubt the holiday weekend had a lot of folks out for the week and people are enjoying the hot, but nice weather. looking forward to seeing you all next month (08/02/2002). -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Wed Jul 10 17:41:19 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] fatport Message-ID: <20020710210129.GD87373@botwerks.org> for those of you that aren't on the ptp mailing list here's a pretty neat turnkey AP that those whacky canadians have put together... http://www.fatport.com/products/fatpoint_OEM i haven't seen any 200mW cards out there does anyone know if any 200mW cards out there? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From v0key at yahoo.com Wed Jul 10 19:55:30 2002 From: v0key at yahoo.com (Richard T Nechanicky) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] fatport In-Reply-To: <20020710210129.GD87373@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020711003612.42658.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> demarc technologies (http://www.demarctech.com) was supposed to start making a 200mW card by now, but it has been a while since I spoke to them. --- steve ulrich wrote: > > > for those of you that aren't on the ptp mailing list > here's a pretty > neat turnkey AP that those whacky canadians have put > together... > > http://www.fatport.com/products/fatpoint_OEM > > i haven't seen any 200mW cards out there does anyone > know if any 200mW > cards out there? > > > > -- > steve ulrich > sulrich@botwerks.org > PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B > FAFC > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From brent at nordist.net Wed Jul 10 22:07:18 2002 From: brent at nordist.net (Brent J. Nordquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) Message-ID: CABLE COMPANIES CRACKING DOWN ON WI-FI One of the best features of Wi-Fi networks is that anyone within 300 feet of an access point can get on the Internet. At least, from the public's point of view this is a benefit. But as more and more grassroots organizations and public-minded citizens set up Wi-Fi "hotspots," ISPs are moving to shut them down. Time Warner Cable of New York City has given 10 customers less than a week to stop using their accounts to provide Wi-Fi access. Time Warner, AT&T Broadband and other high-speed providers say that the redistribution of bandwidth is illegal. Only one major company, Covad Communications, allows paying customers to use their accounts for Wi-Fi networks. While many people set up Wi-Fi networks specifically to permit access to anyone in range, a number of people are unaware that their personal networks "bleed" for about 300 feet. Suzanne Guiliani, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable of New York City, said that her company considers sharing of bandwidth not just as theft, but as a drain on the existing resources for other subscribers. For the present, companies are targeting only network groups who set up Wi-Fi with the intention of sharing bandwidth. [SOURCE: CNET News, AUTHOR: Ben Charny] (http://news.com.com/2100-1033-942323.html?tag=cd_mh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) Benton Foundation 2002. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. Communications-Related Headlines are compiled and summarized by Rachel Anderson (rachel@benton.org), Andy Carvin (andy@benton.org), Shenaz Malik (shenaz@benton.org) and Diana Schneider (diana@benton.org) of the Benton Foundation -- we welcome your feedback. Based in Washington DC, the Benton Foundation's mission is to articulate a public interest vision for the digital age and demonstrate the value of communications for solving social problems. Other projects at Benton include: Digital Divide Network (www.digitaldividenetwork.org) Connect for Kids (www.connectforkids.org) OneWorld US (www.oneworld.net/us/) Sound Partners for Community Health (www.soundpartners.org) Digital Opportunity Channel (www.digitalopportunity.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your settings, or view archived postings, visit http://owa.benton.org/archives/benton-compolicy.html From dean at ripperd2.dhs.org Thu Jul 11 08:40:01 2002 From: dean at ripperd2.dhs.org (Dean E.) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> At 01:38 PM 7/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: >CABLE COMPANIES CRACKING DOWN ON WI-FI >One of the best features of Wi-Fi networks is that anyone within 300 feet of >an access point can get on the Internet. At least, from the public's point >of view this is a benefit. But as more and more grassroots organizations and >public-minded citizens set up Wi-Fi "hotspots," ISPs are moving to shut them >down. Time Warner Cable of New York City has given 10 customers less than a >week to stop using their accounts to provide Wi-Fi access. Time Warner, AT&T >Broadband and other high-speed providers say that the redistribution of >bandwidth is illegal. Only one major company, Covad Communications, allows >paying customers to use their accounts for Wi-Fi networks. While many people >set up Wi-Fi networks specifically to permit access to anyone in range, a >number of people are unaware that their personal networks "bleed" for about >300 feet. Suzanne Guiliani, a spokeswoman for Time Warner Cable of New York >City, said that her company considers sharing of bandwidth not just as >theft, but as a drain on the existing resources for other subscribers. For >the present, companies are targeting only network groups who set up Wi-Fi >with the intention of sharing bandwidth. >[SOURCE: CNET News, AUTHOR: Ben Charny] >(http://news.com.com/2100-1033-942323.html?tag=cd_mh) That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the bandwidth I bought. (as long as it's not for-resale/profit) Then I'd need a business line. How is it "theft" if you are giving it away to people, and it's not the companies to claim! You bought it from them. -Dean >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >(c) Benton Foundation 2002. Redistribution of this email publication - >both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this >message. > >Communications-Related Headlines are compiled and summarized by Rachel >Anderson (rachel@benton.org), Andy Carvin (andy@benton.org), Shenaz >Malik (shenaz@benton.org) and Diana Schneider (diana@benton.org) of the >Benton Foundation -- we welcome your feedback. Based in Washington DC, >the Benton Foundation's mission is to articulate a public interest >vision for the digital age and demonstrate the value of communications >for solving social problems. Other projects at Benton include: > >Digital Divide Network (www.digitaldividenetwork.org) >Connect for Kids (www.connectforkids.org) >OneWorld US (www.oneworld.net/us/) >Sound Partners for Community Health (www.soundpartners.org) >Digital Opportunity Channel (www.digitalopportunity.org) >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your settings, or view archived postings, >visit http://owa.benton.org/archives/benton-compolicy.html > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -- Dean dean@ripperd2.dhs.org http://ripperd2.dhs.org/ Experience is something you don't get until just after you needed it. From goober at schulte.org Thu Jul 11 09:46:28 2002 From: goober at schulte.org (Alex Hartman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: <003601c22910$6b060f50$4f4111c7@jennifer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean E." To: Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) > At 01:38 PM 7/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: > >CABLE COMPANIES CRACKING DOWN ON WI-FI Hah, at&t is pushing the linksys wireless package on people... some crackdown. -- Alex Hartman - goober@goobe.net PGP Key fingerprint = 26 41 19 56 19 81 E2 BC EE C8 1D F4 DB B8 ED B8 "All in all is all we all are..." -Kurt Cobain RIP 1967-1994 From brent at nordist.net Thu Jul 11 09:49:37 2002 From: brent at nordist.net (Brent J. Nordquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Dean E. wrote: > That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the > bandwidth I bought. Well, isn't this the fundamental difference between cable and DSL? With DSL you are paying a fixed cost for a fixed amount of bandwidth, so I suspect they don't care. My understanding with cable is that you're paying a fixed cost for bandwidth that can burst far above what the provider could support, if everyone was doing it at once; thus their different TOS. I think the cable companies are worried about free hot spots blowing their business model. -- Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN (unable to get DSL, unwilling to get cable modem) Other contact information: http://www.nordist.net/contact.html From chewie at wookimus.net Thu Jul 11 10:03:56 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org>; from dean@ripperd2.dhs.org on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:20AM -0500 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: <20020711095650.D31357@wookimus.net> On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:20AM -0500, Dean E. wrote: > That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the > bandwidth I bought. (as long as it's not for-resale/profit) Then I'd need a > business line. > > How is it "theft" if you are giving it away to people, and it's not the > companies to claim! You bought it from them. I would agree with you on both points. Obviously, the cable companies simply want to make more money and will find any way they can to do it. I think the "crack down" is quite nearsighted. If you want to regulate the bandwidth a customer uses, charge by the megabit. Those customers who wish to pay more can do so, and do whatever they wish with the bandwidth they purchase. The current model is a flat rate per month with an acceptable use agreement they felt should cover them for "unearned income". If the legal speak of the agreement doesn't cover giving your bandwidth away, then the ten who were "cracked down" upon would have the right to sue and recover damages from having their service shut down. Anyway... Anyone up in the Midway (St Paul) area wish to set up a WiFi? -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From chrome at real-time.com Thu Jul 11 10:17:02 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org>; from dean@ripperd2.dhs.org on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:20AM -0500 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: <20020711100424.L24214@real-time.com> > That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the > bandwidth I bought. subject to the terms of service agreement that you signed. there's probably a clause in there that says something like "you may not redistribute bandwidth". (of course, it may say "may not _resell_ bandwidth" which is a different beastie). I think Real-Time has something like that (don't remember exactly what it says); but we don't really enforce it unless someone is being obnoxious about it. (and if you let us know what you're doing, we're pretty amenable to lots of stuff, as long as its not illegal). Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From dean at ripperd2.dhs.org Thu Jul 11 12:30:56 2002 From: dean at ripperd2.dhs.org (Dean E.) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711121814.00bd8540@ripperd2.dhs.org> At 09:38 AM 7/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Dean E. wrote: > > > That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the > > bandwidth I bought. > >Well, isn't this the fundamental difference between cable and DSL? With >DSL you are paying a fixed cost for a fixed amount of bandwidth, so I >suspect they don't care. My understanding with cable is that you're >paying a fixed cost for bandwidth that can burst far above what the >provider could support, if everyone was doing it at once; thus their >different TOS. I think the cable companies are worried about free hot >spots blowing their business model. Yes and no. All consumer broadband is oversold, cable, DSL, etc. So they *do* care some, as some users are power users, and some users practically only browse the web and check email. But this is all accounted for in their pricing. There is a set average that you can be oversold by that you don't run into problems with. Although if consumers as a whole, use more of their avaible bandwidth, price is going to go up. That works the same for ANY unmetered service, water, electricity, internet access, etc. Some people pay for more than what they use, some people pay less. This is also why some providors put a few GB a month cap. Personally, my HTTP server alone transfers about a GB per month, and it's just a personal site. A true fractional T-1 at 640kbits would run hundreds a month. my DSL line at 640kbits is only ~$45. This is starting to get a little off-topic tho. -Dean Dean dean@ripperd2.dhs.org http://ripperd2.dhs.org/ Experience is something you don't get until just after you needed it. From dean at ripperd2.dhs.org Thu Jul 11 12:35:12 2002 From: dean at ripperd2.dhs.org (Dean E.) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Excerpted: Communications-Related Headlines for July 9, 2002 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20020711100424.L24214@real-time.com> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> <5.0.2.1.2.20020711082741.03287a88@ripperd2.dhs.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020711122610.032b3c30@ripperd2.dhs.org> At 10:04 AM 7/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > That's BS. I PAY for my bandwidth, so i can do what I please with the > > bandwidth I bought. > >subject to the terms of service agreement that you signed. there's probably >a clause in there that says something like "you may not redistribute >bandwidth". (of course, it may say "may not _resell_ bandwidth" which is a >different beastie). Yup, it pays to read the fine print, as they say. >I think Real-Time has something like that (don't remember exactly what it >says); but we don't really enforce it unless someone is being obnoxious >about it. (and if you let us know what you're doing, we're pretty amenable >to lots of stuff, as long as its not illegal). Agreed, and so is Visi (main sys-admin Mike Horwath reads this list i believe). He is a good guy, and their DSL lines allow servers, and they have good connectivity. They even have a game server colo-ed that a few people admin and keep running, as a service. -Dean -- Dean dean@ripperd2.dhs.org http://ripperd2.dhs.org/ Experience is something you don't get until just after you needed it. From chrome at real-time.com Thu Jul 11 18:56:46 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] fatport In-Reply-To: <20020710210129.GD87373@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:01:29PM -0500 References: <20020710210129.GD87373@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020711153914.C10077@real-time.com> On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 04:01:29PM -0500, steve ulrich wrote: > http://www.fatport.com/products/fatpoint_OEM hmm. looks a lot like a Soekris box (http://www.soekris.com/) running emBSD; but set up as a way for coffeehouses, etc. to make money while offering service. might be something to keep in mind, when trying to convince places around the 'Cities to put up wireless spots. Carl. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From jima at beer.tclug.org Thu Jul 11 18:56:53 2002 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] NodeDB Message-ID: Has anyone seen NodeDB? http://www.nodedb.com I chatted with the owner/maintainer of the site on IRC this afternoon. He offered to make an area on the site for our group -- he couldn't tell if we had a decent mapping site, as ours is locked down. (Heh.) Evidently his site is based on the one at brismesh.org, with some improvements. It's kinda nice, so I thought I'd post it. Meanwhile, while looking at brismesh.org, I noticed that they're held back by the details, as well; they even link to a spoof of their site (http://brismess.0catch.com/). It's worth looking even if only to serve as a warning of what might become of TCWUG if we're not careful. Jima From v0key at yahoo.com Fri Jul 12 00:20:08 2002 From: v0key at yahoo.com (Richard T Nechanicky) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020712032951.16717.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a radio for this unit? THX... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From poptix at techmonkeys.org Fri Jul 12 01:11:25 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: <20020712032951.16717.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com>; from v0key@yahoo.com on Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:51PM -0700 References: <20020712032951.16717.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020712011126.K1270@techmonkeys.org> Hi! You've successfully hijacked a thread, unfortunately this means that most people ignored your message for one of the following reasons: 1) They were ignoring the thread that you hijacked, and your message was threaded under it. 2) They ignore people who hijack threads. Most people don't fully understand what 'thread hijacking' is, when you send an email message your email client adds a special tag in the message header that's pretty much unique, then when people reply to that message your email client puts a tag in that says 'This message is in reply to that message'. This makes it so that nifty mail readers can sort messages more efficiently[1]. You may be wondering, 'But how did *I* hijack a thread if I didn't even know what it was!' Well, generally this happens when you're too lazy to click 'compose message' or 'new message' and type in the address, instead you press the reply button in your reader, then change the subject of the message, thinking that you've created a whole new message (while saving yourself the effort of typing in 'tclug-list@mn-linux.org', i know, it's taxing!). Unfortunately your email program is sneaky, and knows that you pressed the reply button, and still puts that magic 'This message is in reply to that message' header in there! [1] http://www.poptix.net/thread-hijack1.png http://www.poptix.net/thread-hijack2.png These are examples of thread hijacking, and a mail reader that 'threads', or groups messages, in the example you can see that 'Bob Tanner' started a new thread with the subject 'greyhatpak additions?', then a person named 'Andrew Nemchenko' "hijacked" the thread, and wanted to say something about 'some small OT but usefull news', needless to say, he got flamed =) Have a wonderful day. On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:51PM -0700, Richard T Nechanicky wrote: > Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a radio > for this unit? > > THX... > -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From jima at beer.tclug.org Fri Jul 12 07:54:05 2002 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: <20020712011126.K1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > You've successfully hijacked a thread, unfortunately this > means that most people ignored your message for one of the following > reasons: > > 1) They were ignoring the thread that you hijacked, and your message > was threaded under it. Gee, I hope that isn't the case, considering that thread consisted of one message from me. ;) > You may be wondering, 'But how did *I* hijack a thread if I didn't even > know what it was!' Well, generally this happens when you're too lazy to > click 'compose message' or 'new message' and type in the address, instead > you press the reply button in your reader, then change the subject of the > message, thinking that you've created a whole new message (while saving > yourself the effort of typing in 'tclug-list@mn-linux.org', i know, it's > taxing!). Unfortunately your email program is sneaky, and knows that you > pressed the reply button, and still puts that magic 'This message is in > reply to that message' header in there! tclug-list@mn-linux.org? You might want to modify your form letter for the TCWUG, Matt. > These are examples of thread hijacking, and a mail reader that 'threads', > or groups messages, in the example you can see that 'Bob Tanner' started > a new thread with the subject 'greyhatpak additions?', then a person > named 'Andrew Nemchenko' "hijacked" the thread, and wanted to say something > about 'some small OT but usefull news', needless to say, he got flamed =) I suspect Bob started that thread to discuss tools for finding open mail relays, so he could spam people. That slimeball... Post trimmed for brevity; I don't recall if Chewie's on this list. Jima From jdevries at inetium.com Fri Jul 12 08:13:24 2002 From: jdevries at inetium.com (Jim DeVries) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 Message-ID: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173FA6E2@inetium02.inetium.com> As long as you feel the need to lecture others on their email manners, how about dumping the superflous X-message-flag: headers in your emails? > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew S. Hallacy [mailto:poptix@techmonkeys.org] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 1:11 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 > > > Hi! > > You've successfully hijacked a thread, unfortunately this > means that most people ignored your message for one of the following > reasons: > > 1) They were ignoring the thread that you hijacked, and your message > was threaded under it. > > 2) They ignore people who hijack threads. > > Most people don't fully understand what 'thread hijacking' > is, when you > send an email message your email client adds a special tag in > the message > header that's pretty much unique, then when people reply to > that message > your email client puts a tag in that says 'This message is in reply to > that message'. This makes it so that nifty mail readers can > sort messages > more efficiently[1]. > > You may be wondering, 'But how did *I* hijack a thread if I > didn't even > know what it was!' Well, generally this happens when you're > too lazy to > click 'compose message' or 'new message' and type in the > address, instead > you press the reply button in your reader, then change the > subject of the > message, thinking that you've created a whole new message > (while saving > yourself the effort of typing in 'tclug-list@mn-linux.org', i > know, it's > taxing!). Unfortunately your email program is sneaky, and > knows that you > pressed the reply button, and still puts that magic 'This > message is in > reply to that message' header in there! > > > [1] http://www.poptix.net/thread-hijack1.png > http://www.poptix.net/thread-hijack2.png > > These are examples of thread hijacking, and a mail reader > that 'threads', > or groups messages, in the example you can see that 'Bob > Tanner' started > a new thread with the subject 'greyhatpak additions?', then a person > named 'Andrew Nemchenko' "hijacked" the thread, and wanted to > say something > about 'some small OT but usefull news', needless to say, he > got flamed =) > > > Have a wonderful day. > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:29:51PM -0700, Richard T Nechanicky wrote: > > Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a radio > > for this unit? > > > > THX... > > > > -- > Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, > BOFH Certified > http://www.poptix.net GPG public > key 0x01938203 > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From joel at helgeson.com Fri Jul 12 08:13:29 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:13 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: <20020712032951.16717.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c229a4$2596cb50$2802a8c0@SECURITY> To answer your question, there isn't one available yet. It's still in development/testing. It should be released by Cisco by the end of this year. Joel -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Richard T Nechanicky Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:30 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a radio for this unit? THX... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From chewie at wookimus.net Fri Jul 12 10:23:31 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) Message-ID: <20020712101215.B7471@wookimus.net> In response to poptix's "Thread hijacking" note, Jim DeVries wrote: > As long as you feel the need to lecture others on their email manners, how > about dumping the superflous X-message-flag: headers in your emails? Superflous "user defined" headers? Is there even such a thing? I thought that's what X-headers were defined for, superflous user-defined fun. Just because Micro$oft LookOut and cousins try to use it as a meta-data tag doesn't mean that others can't use the header. If the X-message-flag is bugging you, you can use your ISP's shell account to add a procmail recipe to remove the header: :0 fw: * ^X-message-flag | formail -I X-message-flag Violla, no more message header. Unfortunately, the fix for thread hijacking isn't nearly as simple. It actually DOES require user participation. I for one will continue to rib LookOut users for choosing a buggy, insecure, and inferior mail user agent. It's fun, slightly annoying, and if people get the motivation to learn about their favorite MUA to stop the slightly annoying ribbing, then I've done my job to increase user awareness. Anyway, back to your regularily scheduled wireless discussions... -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From chewie at wookimus.net Fri Jul 12 10:23:38 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: ; from jima@beer.tclug.org on Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:45:51AM -0500 References: <20020712011126.K1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020712101416.C7471@wookimus.net> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 07:45:51AM -0500, Jima wrote: > Post trimmed for brevity; I don't recall if Chewie's on this list. Hi! I'm going to post to the end of the thread because it's probably ignored by the rest of the people by now. It's good to know that my influence stretches across list boundaries and that the "Out of Bounds" error doesn't pop up too much. -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From jdevries at inetium.com Fri Jul 12 13:51:06 2002 From: jdevries at inetium.com (Jim DeVries) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) Message-ID: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173FA6EB@inetium02.inetium.com> Why are you using the wireless mailing list to carry out your campaign? Do it in your own personal emails if you like; 802.11b is OS-agnostic. There are plenty of ppl on here using MS mail software and I'll bet they're fully aware of the ramifications of their choices. -Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Chad C. Walstrom [mailto:chewie@wookimus.net] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:12 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) > > ribbing, then I've done my job to increase user awareness. > > Anyway, back to your regularily scheduled wireless discussions... From joel at helgeson.com Fri Jul 12 13:52:19 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: <20020712140103.92501.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c229d3$9f43e3a0$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Richard, The Cisco 1200 802.11a Radio comes with its own captured antenna. You cannot use a 2.4ghz antenna with a 5 ghz radio. [ye cannot change the laws of physics!] They operate on different wavelengths. You need to use 5ghz antennas with um. Now, part of the 802.11a specification is that you're limited [forced] to use the antenna that comes with the radio. It's pretty neat how it works, you plug the card into the front of the unit and if you have the antenna pointing at a 90 degree angle (the AP is mounted on the ceiling or tabletop) it performs as an omni-directional antenna. If you fold the antenna down flat (AP mounted on the wall), it turns itself into a directional patch antenna. Take a look at the images I've attached. That should help 'splain it. Any further questions, don't hesitate to axe. Joel -----Original Message----- From: Richard T Nechanicky [mailto:v0key@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:01 AM To: joel@helgeson.com Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 Joel, Thanks for the response...I am not sure what the point was of that guy proving he could hijack yahoo mail... Anyhow, I just got the 1200 a couple days ago and like it a lot...it has quite a bit more juice (100mW) versus the 30mW my ap340 kicks out. Regardless, I do have a question for you since you are obviously in the know with Cisco...with regards to adding the 802.11a radio down the road (I wonder how much $$ it will be), can we integrate a 5GHZ antenna with a 2.4GHZ on the same unit? For example make one of the radios (802.11a) your primary and use the right antenna connector and then the left will be dedicated to 802.11b...am I looking at this correctly or am I truly missing the boat...? Thanks for your time, Rich --- "Joel R. Helgeson" wrote: > To answer your question, there isn't one available > yet. It's still in > development/testing. It should be released by Cisco > by the end of this > year. > > Joel > > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On > Behalf Of Richard T Nechanicky > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:30 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 > > Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a > radio > for this unit? > > THX... > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 11a-Card.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8023 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020712/f2b2ff6f/11a-Card.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1200AP.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10300 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020712/f2b2ff6f/1200AP.jpg From chewie at wookimus.net Fri Jul 12 15:05:32 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) In-Reply-To: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173FA6EB@inetium02.inetium.com>; from jdevries@inetium.com on Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:39:45PM -0500 References: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173FA6EB@inetium02.inetium.com> Message-ID: <20020712150242.J7471@wookimus.net> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:39:45PM -0500, Jim DeVries wrote: > Why are you using the wireless mailing list to carry out your campaign? Do > it in your own personal emails if you like; 802.11b is OS-agnostic. Campaign? Nonsense. > There are plenty of ppl on here using MS mail software and I'll bet they're > fully aware of the ramifications of their choices. You place far too much faith in people you don't know. ;-) -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From v0key at yahoo.com Fri Jul 12 15:35:11 2002 From: v0key at yahoo.com (Richard T Nechanicky) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 In-Reply-To: <000001c229d3$9f43e3a0$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Message-ID: <20020712193341.57361.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> That rocks...I hope they are halfway affordable when they come out. I have to ask which antennas (2.4Ghz) you went with for you setup...I have the small ceiling omnis with my 340, but went with the 8dbi directional patch antennas with the 1200...you are going to laugh when you relaize I have all of this stuff fired up in my house (someone needs to do some research on the health risks)...anyhow, let me know what you have working on your end if you don't mind. I also have to restore your faith that I do understand the different frequencies, etc and realize that you cannot change the laws of physics...but then again it is my fault if I come across as a friggin idiot. Thanks for the info and pics...very cool. Rich --- "Joel R. Helgeson" wrote: > Richard, > The Cisco 1200 802.11a Radio comes with its own > captured antenna. You > cannot use a 2.4ghz antenna with a 5 ghz radio. [ye > cannot change the > laws of physics!] They operate on different > wavelengths. You need to > use 5ghz antennas with um. Now, part of the 802.11a > specification is > that you're limited [forced] to use the antenna that > comes with the > radio. > > It's pretty neat how it works, you plug the card > into the front of the > unit and if you have the antenna pointing at a 90 > degree angle (the AP > is mounted on the ceiling or tabletop) it performs > as an > omni-directional antenna. If you fold the antenna > down flat (AP mounted > on the wall), it turns itself into a directional > patch antenna. > > Take a look at the images I've attached. That > should help 'splain it. > > Any further questions, don't hesitate to axe. > > Joel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard T Nechanicky [mailto:v0key@yahoo.com] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:01 AM > To: joel@helgeson.com > Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 > > Joel, > > Thanks for the response...I am not sure what the > point > was of that guy proving he could hijack yahoo > mail... > > Anyhow, I just got the 1200 a couple days ago and > like > it a lot...it has quite a bit more juice (100mW) > versus the 30mW my ap340 kicks out. Regardless, I > do > have a question for you since you are obviously in > the > know with Cisco...with regards to adding the 802.11a > radio down the road (I wonder how much $$ it will > be), > can we integrate a 5GHZ antenna with a 2.4GHZ on the > same unit? For example make one of the radios > (802.11a) your primary and use the right antenna > connector and then the left will be dedicated to > 802.11b...am I looking at this correctly or am I > truly > missing the boat...? > > Thanks for your time, > Rich > --- "Joel R. Helgeson" wrote: > > To answer your question, there isn't one available > > yet. It's still in > > development/testing. It should be released by > Cisco > > by the end of this > > year. > > > > Joel > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On > > Behalf Of Richard T Nechanicky > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:30 PM > > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Cisco AP1200 > > > > Anyone know how or where to purchase the 802.11a > > radio > > for this unit? > > > > THX... > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > > Minneapolis/St. Paul, > > Minnesota > > http://www.tcwug.org > > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > > http://www.tcwug.org > > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > ATTACHMENT part 2 image/jpeg name=11a-Card.jpg > ATTACHMENT part 3 image/jpeg name=1200AP.jpg __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us Fri Jul 12 15:48:42 2002 From: troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us (Troy.A Johnson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) Message-ID: An 'X-message-flag' email header is not a campaign, and hijacking threads is not a crime. Both are _minor_ annoyances. Stop the whining, and have a good weekend! From tholt at tholt.com Fri Jul 12 16:12:48 2002 From: tholt at tholt.com (Tim Holtan) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) In-Reply-To: <20020712150242.J7471@wookimus.net> Message-ID: <001f01c229e3$01e205a0$0d0c010a@tholt.com> MUST....RESIST.....FLAMEWAR.... I'd have to agree with Richard. That X-message thing is Super-Ultra-Mega annoying. For those of us who wish their work would use something other than Outrook, the little X header thingy is just a troll. We don't necessarily want to run Outlook, but if our corporate system runs Outrook and its groupware, running something else is kinda silly. And a Career Limiting Move. I, for one, am completely aware of the consequences and ramifications of this choice of email client. It's an email client. It's not a life and death thing. Being snarky in an off-topic flamewar on a email list is a life and death thing. The list lives or dies by the quality of its content. Too many flames = the flamers alone. No content, no listeners. It's simple, really. SO. How about taking it off the list, OK? And quit with the X header. Make a template that doesn't have it, and use that for the list. Your email client does support templates, doesn't it? Tim -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Chad C. Walstrom Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 3:03 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:39:45PM -0500, Jim DeVries wrote: > Why are you using the wireless mailing list to carry out your > campaign? Do it in your own personal emails if you like; 802.11b is > OS-agnostic. Campaign? Nonsense. > There are plenty of ppl on here using MS mail software and I'll bet > they're fully aware of the ramifications of their choices. You place far too much faith in people you don't know. ;-) -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us Fri Jul 12 17:34:54 2002 From: troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us (Troy.A Johnson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [0T] Superflous X-message-flag? (was Cisco AP1200) Message-ID: You know what is "Super-Ultra-Mega annoying"? Some people asking whole lists of other people to accommodate their crappy emailer and/or their persnickety emailing preferences without so much as a "please". If you want people to do things your way, you ask nicely. If you need to be rude and command others to help _you_ with _your_ problem, prepare to be ignored. Being on an email list with others _demands_ some flexibility and some diplomacy. Please show some when next you hit "Send". From joel at helgeson.com Sun Jul 14 14:28:28 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:14 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Network Security Training Message-ID: <000001c22b6b$a9d77540$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Hello my friends, This Tuesday, July 16th I will be teaching two half-day workshops on the subject of network security. These workshops generally tend to get pretty full, however, I still have 4 slots open for the morning session (starts at 8), and 5 slots for the afternoon session (starting at 1). The cost for the workshop is generally $75 but I am waving this registration fee for my friends in the Twin Cities Wireless Users Group. This security workshop is great for Network Managers, Administrators, CIO?s or anyone who wants to learn more about network security and how hackers hack networks. Please read the brochure that is attached to this message for details. If you?re interested in attending, please call or email my administrative assistant, her contact info is on the flyer, or email me at joelh@symetriq.com with your Name, Phone#, Company Name & Email. If you register through Heidi, please let her know that you are with the TCWUG to get in for free. Space is limited! Regards, Joel R. Helgeson Director of?Networking & Security Services SymetriQ Corporation, www.symetriq.com 8500 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Suite 1670 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-3813 Office: (952) 921-8869 Cell: (651) 270-7521 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2002-7-16 - Techknow Session.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 90941 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020714/b7ccb79b/2002-7-16-TechknowSession.pdf From nryberg at uspsoig.gov Mon Jul 15 17:51:27 2002 From: nryberg at uspsoig.gov (nryberg@uspsoig.gov) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Message-ID: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE> This mailing list exists for the sole purpose of exchanging information about using wireless computer communication. The de facto standard for e-mail is plain text, without any HTML formatting or unneccesary x-messages. Almost all users adhere to this almost without question so that what they have to _say_ gets heard, without making a fuss about _how_ the message gets across. To get upset over the fact that I use Outlook as an e-mail client is slightly more frivolous than my personal choice of color for my car. If I use it responsibly (read: no HTML), and treat the other users on this list with respect, I expect the same in kind. If you can't tell already, I'm really tired of being told I'm using a 'crappy' e-mail client. I can't deny that Outlook is 'a breeding ground for viruses', but that's what well configured MTU, good firewalls, and thorough virus scanning is for - I'm fairly confident in saying that just about 99% of the TCWUG users are technically compentant enough to implement those three controls on their own. Let me ask you this - are you afraid of contracting a virus through this list? I sincerely doubt it. Most clients are *NIX based, and are fairly tightly controlled. The ones that are most susceptible (other Outlook users) are the ones that will suffer, NOT the people who shout, protest, whine and complain that I'm using a 'crappy' client. To abuse a technical feature used by Outlook, just to continue a personal vendetta against Outlook users pretty much places you in the same camp as a rank newbie sending out a plea for help in HTML format. Either way, I'm getting garbage that I don't want or expect. At least the newbie is innocent, using x-message-flags is a unique blend of vandalism and childish fit throwing. I've said it privately before, I'll take my opinion on the road with this one: If you expect the TCWUG community to reach some sort of critical mass in terms of enough users to create a usable, shared, open network, you have to be open to users who don't use the same operating system, who don't use the same e-mail client, or who don't know one end of a PCMCIA card from another, but are willing to learn enough about wireless to be dangerous. In short, you've got to be 'nice', or you won't get to have any fun with anyone else. You don't have the luxury of ticking off others just because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Sure you get the nifty thrill of being a 'hacker' (in the negative sense), but in the end, you're stuck with your own AP, and very few others to talk to. As a last point, one of the offending x-message lines suggested that the user go to cws.internet.com/mail.html, which I thought rather ironically lists MS Outlook express as the second best client, and Outlook 2000 in the respectable number nine spot. Guess they're not that crappy after all. - Nick From goober at schulte.org Mon Jul 15 22:07:45 2002 From: goober at schulte.org (Alex Hartman) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE> Message-ID: <001b01c22c74$f7a17fa0$3c4111c7@jennifer> Did i miss somthing? What are you talking about? Look through my headers, Outlook Express... I'm sorry, but i think i'm utterly confused on your whole topic in this group. -- Alex Hartman - goober@goobe.net PGP Key fingerprint = 26 41 19 56 19 81 E2 BC EE C8 1D F4 DB B8 ED B8 "All in all is all we all are..." -Kurt Cobain RIP 1967-1994 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:46 PM Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? > This mailing list exists for the sole purpose of exchanging information > about using wireless computer communication. The de facto standard for > e-mail is plain text, without any HTML formatting or unneccesary x-messages. > Almost all users adhere to this almost without question so that what they > have to _say_ gets heard, without making a fuss about _how_ the message gets > across. > > To get upset over the fact that I use Outlook as an e-mail client is > slightly more frivolous than my personal choice of color for my car. If I > use it responsibly (read: no HTML), and treat the other users on this list > with respect, I expect the same in kind. > > If you can't tell already, I'm really tired of being told I'm using a > 'crappy' e-mail client. I can't deny that Outlook is 'a breeding ground for > viruses', but that's what well configured MTU, good firewalls, and thorough > virus scanning is for - I'm fairly confident in saying that just about 99% > of the TCWUG users are technically compentant enough to implement those > three controls on their own. > > Let me ask you this - are you afraid of contracting a virus through this > list? I sincerely doubt it. Most clients are *NIX based, and are fairly > tightly controlled. The ones that are most susceptible (other Outlook > users) are the ones that will suffer, NOT the people who shout, protest, > whine and complain that I'm using a 'crappy' client. > > To abuse a technical feature used by Outlook, just to continue a personal > vendetta against Outlook users pretty much places you in the same camp as a > rank newbie sending out a plea for help in HTML format. Either way, I'm > getting garbage that I don't want or expect. At least the newbie is > innocent, using x-message-flags is a unique blend of vandalism and childish > fit throwing. > > I've said it privately before, I'll take my opinion on the road with this > one: If you expect the TCWUG community to reach some sort of critical mass > in terms of enough users to create a usable, shared, open network, you have > to be open to users who don't use the same operating system, who don't use > the same e-mail client, or who don't know one end of a PCMCIA card from > another, but are willing to learn enough about wireless to be dangerous. > > In short, you've got to be 'nice', or you won't get to have any fun with > anyone else. You don't have the luxury of ticking off others just because > it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Sure you get the nifty thrill of > being a 'hacker' (in the negative sense), but in the end, you're stuck with > your own AP, and very few others to talk to. > > As a last point, one of the offending x-message lines suggested that the > user go to cws.internet.com/mail.html, which I thought rather ironically > lists MS Outlook express as the second best client, and Outlook 2000 in the > respectable number nine spot. Guess they're not that crappy after all. > > - Nick > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From bneigebauer at attbi.com Mon Jul 15 22:36:27 2002 From: bneigebauer at attbi.com (BN) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE> <001b01c22c74$f7a17fa0$3c4111c7@jennifer> Message-ID: <3D33906F.4000205@attbi.com> I think this topic comes from the TCLUG, or the Linux Users Group. Alex Hartman wrote: >Did i miss somthing? What are you talking about? Look through my headers, >Outlook Express... I'm sorry, but i think i'm utterly confused on your whole >topic in this group. > >-- >Alex Hartman - goober@goobe.net >PGP Key fingerprint = 26 41 19 56 19 81 E2 BC EE C8 1D F4 DB B8 ED B8 >"All in all is all we all are..." -Kurt Cobain RIP 1967-1994 > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:46 PM >Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? > > > > >>This mailing list exists for the sole purpose of exchanging information >>about using wireless computer communication. The de facto standard for >>e-mail is plain text, without any HTML formatting or unneccesary >> >> >x-messages. > > >>Almost all users adhere to this almost without question so that what they >>have to _say_ gets heard, without making a fuss about _how_ the message >> >> >gets > > >>across. >> >>To get upset over the fact that I use Outlook as an e-mail client is >>slightly more frivolous than my personal choice of color for my car. If I >>use it responsibly (read: no HTML), and treat the other users on this list >>with respect, I expect the same in kind. >> >>If you can't tell already, I'm really tired of being told I'm using a >>'crappy' e-mail client. I can't deny that Outlook is 'a breeding ground >> >> >for > > >>viruses', but that's what well configured MTU, good firewalls, and >> >> >thorough > > >>virus scanning is for - I'm fairly confident in saying that just about 99% >>of the TCWUG users are technically compentant enough to implement those >>three controls on their own. >> >>Let me ask you this - are you afraid of contracting a virus through this >>list? I sincerely doubt it. Most clients are *NIX based, and are fairly >>tightly controlled. The ones that are most susceptible (other Outlook >>users) are the ones that will suffer, NOT the people who shout, protest, >>whine and complain that I'm using a 'crappy' client. >> >>To abuse a technical feature used by Outlook, just to continue a personal >>vendetta against Outlook users pretty much places you in the same camp as >> >> >a > > >>rank newbie sending out a plea for help in HTML format. Either way, I'm >>getting garbage that I don't want or expect. At least the newbie is >>innocent, using x-message-flags is a unique blend of vandalism and >> >> >childish > > >>fit throwing. >> >>I've said it privately before, I'll take my opinion on the road with this >>one: If you expect the TCWUG community to reach some sort of critical >> >> >mass > > >>in terms of enough users to create a usable, shared, open network, you >> >> >have > > >>to be open to users who don't use the same operating system, who don't use >>the same e-mail client, or who don't know one end of a PCMCIA card from >>another, but are willing to learn enough about wireless to be dangerous. >> >>In short, you've got to be 'nice', or you won't get to have any fun with >>anyone else. You don't have the luxury of ticking off others just because >>it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Sure you get the nifty thrill of >>being a 'hacker' (in the negative sense), but in the end, you're stuck >> >> >with > > >>your own AP, and very few others to talk to. >> >>As a last point, one of the offending x-message lines suggested that the >>user go to cws.internet.com/mail.html, which I thought rather ironically >>lists MS Outlook express as the second best client, and Outlook 2000 in >> >> >the > > >>respectable number nine spot. Guess they're not that crappy after all. >> >>- Nick >>_______________________________________________ >>Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, >> >> >Minnesota > > >>http://www.tcwug.org >>tcwug-list@tcwug.org >>https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >http://www.tcwug.org >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > From lxy at cloudnet.com Tue Jul 16 09:32:36 2002 From: lxy at cloudnet.com (Brian) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? In-Reply-To: <3D33906F.4000205@attbi.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, BN wrote: > I think this topic comes from the TCLUG, or the Linux Users Group. A certain member of the list has a message hidden in some X-headers that cause Outlook to display certain messages. Unless you get a messge from this user and you use Outlook, you won't know. -Brian From troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us Tue Jul 16 11:43:56 2002 From: troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us (Troy.A Johnson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OT] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Message-ID: Dear List, I hope I haven't offended anyone with an irrational attachment to an emailer. I have a relatively low opinion of _all_ emailers, especially my own, not just Outlook. For future reference, though, if your emailer does something stupid with message threads or extra mail headers, keep it off list. Especially if you think the stupid thing is actually a really neat feature. Ideally, I don't want to know the details of your emailer implementation, or the problems you are having with it, or how you deal with those problems, or how really popular it is. Thanks for your consideration, Troy Johnson From chewie at wookimus.net Tue Jul 16 12:53:01 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? In-Reply-To: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE>; from nryberg@uspsoig.gov on Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 03:46:59PM -0400 References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE> Message-ID: <20020716124044.A6532@wookimus.net> Frankly, Nick, I don't believe anyone gives a rip what email client you use. I've rewritten this letter a couple times already. Each time I find myself writing retorts to each of your points I ask myself, "Why bother?" Obviously, you're willing to let a small annoyance drive you to shallow threats and public ranting at indirect "foes". It's time to drop the thread and all threads like it. If you wish to address individuals about your annoyances, then do so off-list. If you wish to make a list-policy proposal, then do so. I will quote you in saying, "This mailing list exists for the sole purpose of exchanging information about using wireless computer communication." The best example you can set is by following your own advise. -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From jdevries at inetium.com Tue Jul 16 13:32:06 2002 From: jdevries at inetium.com (Jim DeVries) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Message-ID: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173F8C58@inetium02.inetium.com> Obviously you do care Chad or you wouldn't go to the effort of trolling Outlook users like you do. I think if you want this to end, you should cease using x-message-flag. Or yes, we can killfile you but that that kind of excludes the possibility that you have anything valuable to contribute. Do you have anything to contribute? > -----Original Message----- > From: Chad C. Walstrom [mailto:chewie@wookimus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:41 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? > > > > Frankly, Nick, I don't believe anyone gives a rip what email > client you use. > I've rewritten this letter a couple times already. Each time > I find myself > writing retorts to each of your points I ask myself, "Why bother?" > Obviously, you're willing to let a small annoyance drive you > to shallow > threats and public ranting at indirect "foes". It's time to > drop the thread > and all threads like it. > > If you wish to address individuals about your annoyances, then do so > off-list. If you wish to make a list-policy proposal, then > do so. I will > quote you in saying, "This mailing list exists for the sole purpose of > exchanging information about using wireless computer > communication." The > best example you can set is by following your own advise. > > -- > Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie > http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From chewie at wookimus.net Tue Jul 16 13:33:33 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? In-Reply-To: <20020716124044.A6532@wookimus.net>; from chewie@wookimus.net on Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:40:44PM -0500 References: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA03@POPEYE> <20020716124044.A6532@wookimus.net> Message-ID: <20020716130321.B6532@wookimus.net> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 12:40:44PM -0500, Chad C. Walstrom wrote: > If you wish to address individuals about your annoyances, then do so > off-list. I apologize to the list for not checking the darned "To" address, as this was meant to be a private reply. i.e. Listening to my own advice, etc., etc... -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us Tue Jul 16 14:12:02 2002 From: troy.johnson at health.state.mn.us (Troy.A Johnson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Message-ID: Die thread, die! From chewie at wookimus.net Tue Jul 16 16:17:49 2002 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad C. Walstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? In-Reply-To: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173F8C58@inetium02.inetium.com>; from jdevries@inetium.com on Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:24:52PM -0500 References: <2FAC136EF9F588448F7DEA84A1C7173F8C58@inetium02.inetium.com> Message-ID: <20020716144322.C6532@wookimus.net> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:24:52PM -0500, Jim DeVries wrote: > Do you have anything to contribute? If you wish to address me personally about this "issue" or any other off-topic thread, send email off-list please. -- Chad Walstrom | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr From neigebauerb at attbi.com Tue Jul 16 17:13:02 2002 From: neigebauerb at attbi.com (BN) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <001d01c22d10$8c216280$fc62a8c0@slick> Are those richochet boxes still in the twincities? I heard they were bought by another company, but that is the last I have heard. Maybe, and this is a BIG maybe, we can strike a deal with individual cities. Offer wireless access to city employees, civil engineers, inspectors, etc in exchange for the nonexclusive right to put some wireless access points around the city. Its not the best means to deploy, but we could have wireless to wireless bridging, with solar power/battery boxes on top of water towers, city buildings, traffic lights, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020716/ad53675b/attachment.htm From nryberg at uspsoig.gov Tue Jul 16 17:13:27 2002 From: nryberg at uspsoig.gov (nryberg@uspsoig.gov) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Message-ID: <63B474C9AD27D411936400508BACF93018AA23@POPEYE> I apologize for any hard feelings that I may have generated on this issue - I'll take any future discussion offline and keep it that way. Thanks everyone for your patience. - Nick -----Original Message----- From: Troy.A Johnson [mailto:troy.johnson@health.state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:01 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] [OFFTOPIC] Religion, e-mail clients and wireless? Die thread, die! _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From bryan at edgar.sector14.net Tue Jul 16 17:51:30 2002 From: bryan at edgar.sector14.net (Bryan Halvorson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <001d01c22d10$8c216280$fc62a8c0@slick> from "BN" at Jul 16, 2002 04:34:20 PM Message-ID: <200207162241.g6GMfHx23852@twenty.sector14.net> BN wrote: > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C22CE6.A2EE1F50 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Are those richochet boxes still in the twincities? I heard they were = > bought by another company, but that is the last I have heard.=20 > > Maybe, and this is a BIG maybe, we can strike a deal with individual = > cities. Offer wireless access to city employees, civil engineers, = > inspectors, etc in exchange for the nonexclusive right to put some = > wireless access points around the city. This is exactly what Richochet did. They offered free network and intranet access to any city that would allow them to place their boxes on city owned property and lightpoles for free. Richfield police have laptops in their cars with high speed internet access and access to DMV and the usual databases which I believe is thru Richochet and is still working. -- Bryan Halvorson bryan@edgar.sector14.net From austad at marketwatch.com Wed Jul 17 12:49:14 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888013@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Richochet is planning on rolling the service out again to the public here soon. They are testing it in Denver now. I still have a pcmcia ricochet card, but it's not that impressive. Connectivity is spotty, and very slow in most cases. It's better than nothing, but it's still kinda sketchy. http://www.etherlinx.com/ has an interesting "last mile" solution using 802.11b. It basically uses your neighbors access point to hop off of and eventually get routed to the ISP's network. The more people that sign up, the more coverage they get. Motorola has something called Canopy (http://www.motorola.com/canopy/index.html). This actually looks very interesting. Same type of deal as above, but seems to have a greater range. Pricing isn't bad either. http://www.ecommwireless.com/canopy.html Access points run around $1000, and subscriber modules run around $500 each. An ISP starter kit runs $30k. I'd be very interested in playing with this stuff. There seems to be much more potential here than with standard 802.11 equipment. Plus, if a bunch of us could get a basic network set up and running, we'd have the ability to provide public access to it and possibly make some money too. Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: Bryan Halvorson [mailto:bryan@edgar.sector14.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:41 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > > BN wrote: > > > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C22CE6.A2EE1F50 > > Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > Are those richochet boxes still in the twincities? I heard > they were = > > bought by another company, but that is the last I have heard.=20 > > > > Maybe, and this is a BIG maybe, we can strike a deal with > individual = > > cities. Offer wireless access to city employees, civil engineers, = > > inspectors, etc in exchange for the nonexclusive right to > put some = > > wireless access points around the city. > > This is exactly what Richochet did. They offered free network > and intranet access to any city that would allow them to > place their boxes on city owned property and lightpoles for > free. Richfield police have > laptops in their cars with high speed internet access and > access to DMV > and the usual databases which I believe is thru Richochet and > is still > working. > > > > > -- > Bryan Halvorson > bryan@edgar.sector14.net > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-> time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Jul 18 08:09:02 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:15 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org Message-ID: <20020718080010.B1270@techmonkeys.org> Hi. http://maps.tcwug.org is in the second phase of restriction, a username and password are no longer required for most of the site, information such as: Contact info (name, email address, street address) ISP IP Address Close zoom-in levels are restricted to logged in users, also, node editing is restricted to the user with the same email address attached to the node. IE, if node 'foobar' has an email address of 'foobar@aol.com', only the user 'foobar@aol.com' may edit the node. If you currently have a node on the list, and do not have a login, you might want to send me an email with a password. People who previously e-mailed me with a username/password do NOT need to e-amil me a new username/password, they have been imported into the database. GOTCHAS: 1) If you sent me a username that differs from the one on your node, you'll have to email me to fix it. 2) IF YOU ARE PARANOID, do not name your node after yourself, node names are still visible to anonymous users, and the mouseovers on the maps. 3) GPS Coordinates are still visible to anonymous users, I'd like feedback on if this is wanted, or if I should maybe make this optional. I need feedback on any other privacy concerns. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From dante at plethora.net Thu Jul 18 10:10:42 2002 From: dante at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718080010.B1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > GOTCHAS: > > 1) If you sent me a username that differs from the one on your node, you'll > have to email me to fix it. > > 2) IF YOU ARE PARANOID, do not name your node after yourself, node names > are still visible to anonymous users, and the mouseovers on the maps. > > 3) GPS Coordinates are still visible to anonymous users, I'd like feedback > on if this is wanted, or if I should maybe make this optional. > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more comfortable with the GPS address limited. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Thu Jul 18 12:27:48 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888013@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: I think that both of these solutions are kind of interesting. If I remember correctly, there was some discussion a while back about the etherlinx ideas. The canopy system seems to be pretty effective, at the very least from a marketing perspective. Can any of our RF engineer types comment on the validity of their claims? Like you said, the prices are reasonable, that is if you have that sort of cash laying around. It would be very cool to develop neighborhood, and then possibly city-wide ISP type networks where users could share the burden of equipment and connection costs. The startup equipment costs for the end user (for the canopy system) are pretty darned high compared to cable, and even to DSL. Then too, you need a good high point to mount the AP.... Overall, I think Motorola has got something good going here - don't sell service itself, sell the shovels to dig the service, so to speak. The question of money is pretty critical - if we, as the TCWUG developed a city wide system, and then had end users pay for access, we'd almost by definition have to be non-profit. That's doesn't mean that we, collectively, couldn't make money off of the idea, it's just a lot different from your basic ISP startup who's sole purpose is to make money, and preferrably lots of it. I would guess that in several years, some sort of city-wide ISP will probably offer this ala Ricochet (or maybe even Richochet itself?), and that would make it difficult to compete. I don't know many companies successfully offering dial-up out of their garage anymore - there just isn't much profit to be made. But if we got in at the ground floor (or would that be the second floor, altitude wise?), and established a presence before Earthlink/AOL/whoever comes in and drops million$ on the Twin Cities, this idea might just survive. Furthermore, if it was non-profit, there might be some sort of funding (grants, etc...) that would help cover startup costs. Just my keyboard running wild - I hope some of these ideas resonate with someone else... - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Austad, Jay Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 12:38 PM To: 'tcwug-list@tcwug.org' Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Richochet is planning on rolling the service out again to the public here soon. They are testing it in Denver now. I still have a pcmcia ricochet card, but it's not that impressive. Connectivity is spotty, and very slow in most cases. It's better than nothing, but it's still kinda sketchy. http://www.etherlinx.com/ has an interesting "last mile" solution using 802.11b. It basically uses your neighbors access point to hop off of and eventually get routed to the ISP's network. The more people that sign up, the more coverage they get. Motorola has something called Canopy (http://www.motorola.com/canopy/index.html). This actually looks very interesting. Same type of deal as above, but seems to have a greater range. Pricing isn't bad either. http://www.ecommwireless.com/canopy.html Access points run around $1000, and subscriber modules run around $500 each. An ISP starter kit runs $30k. I'd be very interested in playing with this stuff. There seems to be much more potential here than with standard 802.11 equipment. Plus, if a bunch of us could get a basic network set up and running, we'd have the ability to provide public access to it and possibly make some money too. Jay From austad at marketwatch.com Thu Jul 18 13:07:15 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > Like you said, the prices are reasonable, that is if you have > that sort of cash laying around. It would be very cool to > develop neighborhood, and then possibly city-wide ISP type > networks where users could share the burden of equipment and > connection costs. The startup equipment costs for the end > user (for the canopy system) are pretty darned high compared > to cable, and even to DSL. Actually, this is much less than the startup costs for cable or DSL. With either of those, you have to have an existing cable or phone line infrastructure, neither of which is cheap. For all practical purposes, this is much much cheaper. > The question of money is pretty critical - if we, as the > TCWUG developed a city wide system, and then had end users > pay for access, we'd almost by definition have to be > non-profit. That's doesn't mean that we, collectively, > couldn't make money off of the idea, it's just a lot > different from your basic ISP startup who's sole purpose is > to make money, and preferrably lots of it. Onvoy started out at MRNet, which was a non-profit. After they got real big, they converted to a for-profit business. I don't know the steps involved in doing this, but it is possible. > made. But if we got in at the ground floor (or would that be > the second floor, altitude wise?), and established a presence > before Earthlink/AOL/whoever comes in and drops million$ on > the Twin Cities, this idea might just survive. Actually, that's exactly it. We wouldn't necessarily get getting in on the ground floor since there are a couple of other ISP's here in town that do this (Implex.net and sbwireless.net (or .com or .org, I forget which)). Even so, if we have an existing infrastructure when AOL/TW/Intel/whatever comes in, there's always the possibility to sell it to them rather than be put out of business. However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT Broadband current gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to compete against them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't block anything, let them run servers, provide static IP's, and provide tiered service levels. All of these things are an improvement over ATT Broadband's shitty network, and if ATT came in and offered wireless, it's probably safe to say it's going to suck just as much as their cable modem service does. Jay From drechsau at geeks.org Thu Jul 18 15:09:17 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020718080010.B1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:25:21AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > > 3) GPS Coordinates are still visible to anonymous users, I'd like feedback > > on if this is wanted, or if I should maybe make this optional. > > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more > comfortable with the GPS address limited. You're willing to go out and wardrive around to find open access points, but you don't want your GPS listed? Hypocritical? -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Thu Jul 18 15:18:01 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888013@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020718200829.GB13199@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:46:56AM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > The question of money is pretty critical - if we, as the TCWUG > developed a city wide system, and then had end users pay for access, > we'd almost by definition have to be non-profit. That's doesn't > mean that we, collectively, couldn't make money off of the idea, > it's just a lot different from your basic ISP startup who's sole > purpose is to make money, and preferrably lots of it. I would guess > that in several years, some sort of city-wide ISP will probably > offer this ala Ricochet (or maybe even Richochet itself?), and that > would make it difficult to compete. I don't know many companies > successfully offering dial-up out of their garage anymore - there > just isn't much profit to be made. But if we got in at the ground > floor (or would that be the second floor, altitude wise?), and > established a presence before Earthlink/AOL/whoever comes in and > drops million$ on the Twin Cities, this idea might just survive. > Furthermore, if it was non-profit, there might be some sort of > funding (grants, etc...) that would help cover startup costs. Why a non-profit? I wouldn't want the overhead of being a not for profit company if it is a company that is going to make some cash. It is no easier to do a NfP than to do a fP company, in fact, for lots of the rules and regs, a fP is far easier. Now as to whether a dialup provider is profitable...are you speaking from experience or just spewing? As someone who does the tech shit at an ISP, including the budgetting, procurement, and setup/runtime of ISP gear, I can say that dialup can be profitable. Whether you can buy a shitload of gear and make it profitable...time to set up a business plan. First, you can't offer all you can eat - because there are assholes that will eat all that you give them. All it is going to take is a couple of pr0n or warez hounds and your model will be shot as you only have so much bandwidth at 802.11b layouts. There are many on this list that will do just that, and not because they are assholes (it is a term I use :), but because it is available. I look forward to the next meeting. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Thu Jul 18 15:19:34 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:52:01PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Actually, that's exactly it. We wouldn't necessarily get getting in > on the ground floor since there are a couple of other ISP's here in > town that do this (Implex.net and sbwireless.net (or .com or .org, I > forget which)). Even so, if we have an existing infrastructure when > AOL/TW/Intel/whatever comes in, there's always the possibility to > sell it to them rather than be put out of business. Funny. Ground floor doesn't mean instant money, profitability, or that you win in the long run. I started Winternet - where is it now? Where is VISI.com now? Hell, almost all of the ISPs that started after Winternet are larger (or they are out of business or absorbed by the borg). > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT Broadband > current gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > compete against them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't > block anything, let them run servers, provide static IP's, and > provide tiered service levels. All of these things are an > improvement over ATT Broadband's shitty network, and if ATT came in > and offered wireless, it's probably safe to say it's going to suck > just as much as their cable modem service does. Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, on the networks you talk about above. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Thu Jul 18 15:36:33 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: Jay - You've got a good point that I wasn't really thinking of - overall cost is a lot lower for infrastructure. I guess I was thinking about how much money Joe User would have to lay out to get his house hooked into the network. When I see the base price of $515 for the "Subscriber Module" that sits in the home, I can't see anyone really going for it that already has the phone lines and/or digital cable running through their house. However, given that DSL starts at a minimum of $39 for Qwest/MSN, and the DSL modem is an additional cost (or not depending on specials), there might be room to prorate the cost of the user's equipment out over the life of their use. What if TCWUG matched or bested the average dial-up rate - approximately $20 or so?? I don't know what you all pay for connectivity - I'm at $15 for dial-up, after paying through the nose for Roadrunner cable, I'm just fine for that. If I could get wireless, whatever the technical model might be, I'd be happy to shell out $20 a month for high speed. In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd probably be a money maker. I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too commercial for TCWUG. - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Austad, Jay Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:52 PM To: 'tcwug-list@tcwug.org' Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > Like you said, the prices are reasonable, that is if you have > that sort of cash laying around. It would be very cool to > develop neighborhood, and then possibly city-wide ISP type > networks where users could share the burden of equipment and > connection costs. The startup equipment costs for the end > user (for the canopy system) are pretty darned high compared > to cable, and even to DSL. Actually, this is much less than the startup costs for cable or DSL. With either of those, you have to have an existing cable or phone line infrastructure, neither of which is cheap. For all practical purposes, this is much much cheaper. > The question of money is pretty critical - if we, as the > TCWUG developed a city wide system, and then had end users > pay for access, we'd almost by definition have to be > non-profit. That's doesn't mean that we, collectively, > couldn't make money off of the idea, it's just a lot > different from your basic ISP startup who's sole purpose is > to make money, and preferrably lots of it. Onvoy started out at MRNet, which was a non-profit. After they got real big, they converted to a for-profit business. I don't know the steps involved in doing this, but it is possible. > made. But if we got in at the ground floor (or would that be > the second floor, altitude wise?), and established a presence > before Earthlink/AOL/whoever comes in and drops million$ on > the Twin Cities, this idea might just survive. Actually, that's exactly it. We wouldn't necessarily get getting in on the ground floor since there are a couple of other ISP's here in town that do this (Implex.net and sbwireless.net (or .com or .org, I forget which)). Even so, if we have an existing infrastructure when AOL/TW/Intel/whatever comes in, there's always the possibility to sell it to them rather than be put out of business. However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT Broadband current gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to compete against them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't block anything, let them run servers, provide static IP's, and provide tiered service levels. All of these things are an improvement over ATT Broadband's shitty network, and if ATT came in and offered wireless, it's probably safe to say it's going to suck just as much as their cable modem service does. Jay _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Thu Jul 18 15:36:41 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: Mike - I think there's two somewhat different issues here that only meet in the ethical middle, so to speak. My question is, Matthew - are you worried about getting busted for sharing cable bandwidth with your friends and neighbors, or are you worried about someone wardriving your AP? - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:04 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:25:21AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > > 3) GPS Coordinates are still visible to anonymous users, I'd like feedback > > on if this is wanted, or if I should maybe make this optional. > > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more > comfortable with the GPS address limited. You're willing to go out and wardrive around to find open access points, but you don't want your GPS listed? Hypocritical? -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Jul 18 15:39:10 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG>; from drechsau@geeks.org on Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:03:50PM -0500 References: <20020718080010.B1270@techmonkeys.org> <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020718153056.D1270@techmonkeys.org> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:03:50PM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: Hi Mike, haven't heard from you lately.. > > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more > > comfortable with the GPS address limited. > > You're willing to go out and wardrive around to find open access > points, but you don't want your GPS listed? > > Hypocritical? > I believe he's referring to the threatening letters being sent out by various ISP's to customers who are merely interested in WUG's, regardless of if they're interested in the 'overlay network' design (where their ToS with their ISP wouldn't matter) or the 'hotspot' design, where there could be some conflict regarding redistribution of bandwidth. Regardless, the site is open to the public for the most part, you simply have to email me with a password (your email address is your username). > -- > Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG > Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Bold of you =) Have a nice day. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From jkotek at madgenius.com Thu Jul 18 15:39:16 2002 From: jkotek at madgenius.com (Jon Kotek) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020718152932.M98810@madgenius.com> You ever notice that most of the ISP's that are still around started around 1994-95?? After that the market got too tight. If you want to do Wireless you need to get in soon before the train leaves the station so to speak. Jon > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:52:01PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > > Actually, that's exactly it. We wouldn't necessarily get getting in > > on the ground floor since there are a couple of other ISP's here in > > town that do this (Implex.net and sbwireless.net (or .com or .org, I > > forget which)). Even so, if we have an existing infrastructure when > > AOL/TW/Intel/whatever comes in, there's always the possibility to > > sell it to them rather than be put out of business. > > Funny. > > Ground floor doesn't mean instant money, profitability, or that you > win in the long run. > > I started Winternet - where is it now? Where is VISI.com now? > > Hell, almost all of the ISPs that started after Winternet are larger > (or they are out of business or absorbed by the borg). > > > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT Broadband > > current gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > > compete against them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't > > block anything, let them run servers, provide static IP's, and > > provide tiered service levels. All of these things are an > > improvement over ATT Broadband's shitty network, and if ATT came in > > and offered wireless, it's probably safe to say it's going to suck > > just as much as their cable modem service does. > > Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. > > Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, on the > networks you talk about above. > > -- > Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG > Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 > Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself > through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Thu Jul 18 15:48:40 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020718200829.GB13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: Mike - You're exactly the kind of person I was hoping would speak up! I was thinking that within the context of TCWUG, which doesn't exist to make any money at all, it seemed to fit that a business that grew out of it would also not be so interested in being profitable as to create a large, shared network. That's just my perception - I'm personally all for making money, I was making an assumption that probably isn't all that valid. Yes - I was just spewing. I don't have any personal knowledge of the industry. I was basing it primarily on the low number of ISP's currently operating combined with the two basic pricing models - AOL based = $21 a month with lots of handholding, vs. your friendly local ISP that's cheaper and will provide lots of help, but without the warm and fuzzy style that AOL seems to make so much money on. I'm not trying to criticize you, your ISP or the industry at all - I personally prefer the more direct method that a local ISP provides - I'm just trying to give a sense of perception, which is pretty critical for any business be they profit or non-profit. It seemed like for a while there, there were dozens of ISP's thrown together on the fly out of people garages - some survived, other's disappeared. I would think that the same phenomena would apply to wireless. Bandwidth consumption is a critical problem - how do you control it at your ISP? - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:08 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:46:56AM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > The question of money is pretty critical - if we, as the TCWUG > developed a city wide system, and then had end users pay for access, > we'd almost by definition have to be non-profit. That's doesn't > mean that we, collectively, couldn't make money off of the idea, > it's just a lot different from your basic ISP startup who's sole > purpose is to make money, and preferrably lots of it. I would guess > that in several years, some sort of city-wide ISP will probably > offer this ala Ricochet (or maybe even Richochet itself?), and that > would make it difficult to compete. I don't know many companies > successfully offering dial-up out of their garage anymore - there > just isn't much profit to be made. But if we got in at the ground > floor (or would that be the second floor, altitude wise?), and > established a presence before Earthlink/AOL/whoever comes in and > drops million$ on the Twin Cities, this idea might just survive. > Furthermore, if it was non-profit, there might be some sort of > funding (grants, etc...) that would help cover startup costs. Why a non-profit? I wouldn't want the overhead of being a not for profit company if it is a company that is going to make some cash. It is no easier to do a NfP than to do a fP company, in fact, for lots of the rules and regs, a fP is far easier. Now as to whether a dialup provider is profitable...are you speaking from experience or just spewing? As someone who does the tech shit at an ISP, including the budgetting, procurement, and setup/runtime of ISP gear, I can say that dialup can be profitable. Whether you can buy a shitload of gear and make it profitable...time to set up a business plan. First, you can't offer all you can eat - because there are assholes that will eat all that you give them. All it is going to take is a couple of pr0n or warez hounds and your model will be shot as you only have so much bandwidth at 802.11b layouts. There are many on this list that will do just that, and not because they are assholes (it is a term I use :), but because it is available. I look forward to the next meeting. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Thu Jul 18 15:48:49 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: Mike - Does your ISP have any plans or ideas about providing this kind of service? It would seem like an obvious fit - you've already got the bandwidth to the 'net, given a good location for an AP, you could practically sell this stuff door to door (well, maybe you'd have to given our geography). It's interesting that you were the Winternet founder - I had a friend that used it, and swore by it. He moved to Texas, and used one of the 'borgs' down there. - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:11 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:52:01PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Actually, that's exactly it. We wouldn't necessarily get getting in > on the ground floor since there are a couple of other ISP's here in > town that do this (Implex.net and sbwireless.net (or .com or .org, I > forget which)). Even so, if we have an existing infrastructure when > AOL/TW/Intel/whatever comes in, there's always the possibility to > sell it to them rather than be put out of business. Funny. Ground floor doesn't mean instant money, profitability, or that you win in the long run. I started Winternet - where is it now? Where is VISI.com now? Hell, almost all of the ISPs that started after Winternet are larger (or they are out of business or absorbed by the borg). > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT Broadband > current gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > compete against them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't > block anything, let them run servers, provide static IP's, and > provide tiered service levels. All of these things are an > improvement over ATT Broadband's shitty network, and if ATT came in > and offered wireless, it's probably safe to say it's going to suck > just as much as their cable modem service does. Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, on the networks you talk about above. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Thu Jul 18 15:48:57 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:25:21AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > > > 3) GPS Coordinates are still visible to anonymous users, I'd like feedback > > > on if this is wanted, or if I should maybe make this optional. > > > > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more > > comfortable with the GPS address limited. > > You're willing to go out and wardrive around to find open access > points, but you don't want your GPS listed? > > Hypocritical? 1: I don't wardrive. 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From austad at marketwatch.com Thu Jul 18 17:03:27 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888807A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT > Broadband current > > gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > compete against > > them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't block > anything, let > > them run servers, provide static IP's, and provide tiered service > > levels. All of these things are an improvement over ATT > Broadband's > > shitty network, and if ATT came in and offered wireless, > it's probably > > safe to say it's going to suck just as much as their cable modem > > service does. > > Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. > > Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, > on the networks you talk about above. I was making the point that a *non*-ATT/AOL/TW network would likely be able to offer more since all of the cable modem companies are clamping down on bandwidth and servers. Right there is a reason for people to choose the local wireless provider over the 800lb gorillas. Jay From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Jul 18 17:03:37 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: ; from nryberg@mendota-bridge.com on Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:22:01PM -0500 References: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020718164624.E1270@techmonkeys.org> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:22:01PM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > My question is, Matthew - are you worried about getting busted for sharing > cable bandwidth with your friends and neighbors, or are you worried about > someone wardriving your AP? You may have meant Daniel, but no, I'm not afraid of Death Star company, the restrictions are in response to the following: 1) Privacy concerns, we don't want to be a phone book for people trying to find joe blow's home address and phone #. I also don't want to be the place that the latest e-mail harvesting bot found everyones addresses at =) 2) ISP concerns, while it *may* be against your ToS with your ISP to share your connection, various ISP's are mailing their customers certified letters telling them to comply, or be terminated. (regardless of if they're violating the ToS or not). Restricting the information to verified people keeps unnecessary threats away. 3) Evil Bad People From A Wireless ISP Who Keep Trying To Mirror The Whole Site Effectively DoS'ing The Machine It Runs On. I'm sick of the person doing it, and this is my solution 4) There is no #4, yet, but I'm sure there will be. > - Nick -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From natecars at real-time.com Thu Jul 18 17:07:25 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:16 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > probably be a money maker. Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, it'll cause problems. Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > commercial for TCWUG. I like it, let's keep it. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From bneigebauer at attbi.com Thu Jul 18 18:39:02 2002 From: bneigebauer at attbi.com (BN) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002f01c22eb2$d1373db0$0e62a8c0@slick> I was thinking that the Motorola neighborhood system coupled with traditional 802.11b would work pretty well. I live in an apartment complex. It would be ideal for a few 802.11b access points. It certainly would be a lower cost of entry coupled with enough people together that might make it work. Also, there are about 4 other apartment complexes within 1 or so. Its out of reach for standard 802.11b, but the Motorola neighborhood devices should work. So, with 5 buildings in my complex, each with 48 units. That's 240 units. I could probably get 20 or so to sign on. Multiply that by the 4 other complexes, I would have about 80 users. So, $2100+500*4 for Motorola Plus $1000 in access points That's $5100 for 80 users. Or about $64 + Wireless card per house startup. For access, I'd probably get the DSL Business 7mbps plan from Visi (if available in my area). That's $725 a month. Split amongst 80 users, that's a little over $9 a month. That's cheaper than dialup. Oh wait, just realized, it would be 5 complexes total with approx 100 people. Oh well. It would mean a sustainable rate of 87500bps if everyone access the network at full capacity at the same time. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Nate Carlson Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:24 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > probably be a money maker. Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, it'll cause problems. Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > commercial for TCWUG. I like it, let's keep it. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From jkotek at madgenius.com Thu Jul 18 23:20:01 2002 From: jkotek at madgenius.com (Jon Kotek) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020718231241.M47876@madgenius.com> Currently I am using Charter Business T1 and I can pretty much do anything I want, resale is an option. T1 costs have come down, Cable and Wireless will do 700/month for a PtP T1, however you need to get a router and a CSU/DSU. Plus you still need to figure out the bandwidth usage. Jon > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > > probably be a money maker. > > Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. > > For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are > for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our > case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't > actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's > sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, > it'll cause problems. > > Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, > or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). > > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. > > Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit > resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business > off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above > 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb > symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many > places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. > > Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to > get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper > than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole > lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit > customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to > cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish > speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is > going to seem slow, too. > > > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > > commercial for TCWUG. > > I like it, let's keep it. :) > > -- > Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From chrome at real-time.com Fri Jul 19 10:59:22 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Unix/Linux GUI for WAP11 configuration Message-ID: <20020719104550.F12969@real-time.com> looks like a good tool; tho I don't have a WAP11 to try it out on. http://wap11gui.sourceforge.net/ Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Fri Jul 19 11:05:02 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718164624.E1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: Sorry Matt! My misread... What's the #3 about? Besides Evil Bad People... - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:46 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:22:01PM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > My question is, Matthew - are you worried about getting busted for sharing > cable bandwidth with your friends and neighbors, or are you worried about > someone wardriving your AP? You may have meant Daniel, but no, I'm not afraid of Death Star company, the restrictions are in response to the following: 1) Privacy concerns, we don't want to be a phone book for people trying to find joe blow's home address and phone #. I also don't want to be the place that the latest e-mail harvesting bot found everyones addresses at =) 2) ISP concerns, while it *may* be against your ToS with your ISP to share your connection, various ISP's are mailing their customers certified letters telling them to comply, or be terminated. (regardless of if they're violating the ToS or not). Restricting the information to verified people keeps unnecessary threats away. 3) Evil Bad People From A Wireless ISP Who Keep Trying To Mirror The Whole Site Effectively DoS'ing The Machine It Runs On. I'm sick of the person doing it, and this is my solution 4) There is no #4, yet, but I'm sure there will be. > - Nick -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Fri Jul 19 11:07:47 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888807A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: Unfortunately, any solution we come up with will have the some limitations that cable companies face: limited bandwidth. No matter how generous you feel towards your subscribers (free or otherwise), you're only going to have x number of megabits to share, and bandwidth throttling and server limitations is the easiest way to do that. They're probably not the _best_ way, but it's an option. Basically, by becoming a provider, we're put in the same hot seat that the cable execs are frying in right now. If we want to have a completely open network, that's really great, but how do we deal with exceptional problems like one of our member's websites getting slashdotted? That'd blow away availability for everyone else who simply wants to get out to the net. I'm playing the devil's advocate on this one, not because I like trolling this list and just disagreeing with your points - honestly, I think it's an issue we've got to worry about. If I had $5,000+ laying around, I'd be placing an order for my instant-just-add-water-ISP right now, and damn the bandwidth issues! - Full speed ahead!! - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Austad, Jay Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:58 PM To: 'tcwug-list@tcwug.org' Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > However, given the amount of freedom that AOL/TW/ATT > Broadband current > > gives their customers, it would likely be very easy to > compete against > > them. Just don't modify people's traffic, don't block > anything, let > > them run servers, provide static IP's, and provide tiered service > > levels. All of these things are an improvement over ATT > Broadband's > > shitty network, and if ATT came in and offered wireless, > it's probably > > safe to say it's going to suck just as much as their cable modem > > service does. > > Uhm, the cable companies have announced plans to cap bandwidth. > > Unless you pay the fees, running servers is a no-no, period, > on the networks you talk about above. I was making the point that a *non*-ATT/AOL/TW network would likely be able to offer more since all of the cable modem companies are clamping down on bandwidth and servers. Right there is a reason for people to choose the local wireless provider over the 800lb gorillas. Jay _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Fri Jul 19 11:07:54 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's a good point - I picked DSL because it's the pricing model that I'm most familiar with. I didn't even know Real Time had a TCLUG program, so that shows how out of the loop I am... Does anyone have a chart of the various bandwiths and typical pricing? - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Nate Carlson Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:24 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > probably be a money maker. Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, it'll cause problems. Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > commercial for TCWUG. I like it, let's keep it. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Fri Jul 19 11:08:02 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <002f01c22eb2$d1373db0$0e62a8c0@slick> Message-ID: That's a good idea - I was thinking in terms of single occupancy residence - a typical home. That bottom estimate of bandwidth would be the worst case scenario, wouldn't it? So, technically speaking, would the speed be variable ala cable? - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of BN Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:28 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? I was thinking that the Motorola neighborhood system coupled with traditional 802.11b would work pretty well. I live in an apartment complex. It would be ideal for a few 802.11b access points. It certainly would be a lower cost of entry coupled with enough people together that might make it work. Also, there are about 4 other apartment complexes within 1 or so. Its out of reach for standard 802.11b, but the Motorola neighborhood devices should work. So, with 5 buildings in my complex, each with 48 units. That's 240 units. I could probably get 20 or so to sign on. Multiply that by the 4 other complexes, I would have about 80 users. So, $2100+500*4 for Motorola Plus $1000 in access points That's $5100 for 80 users. Or about $64 + Wireless card per house startup. For access, I'd probably get the DSL Business 7mbps plan from Visi (if available in my area). That's $725 a month. Split amongst 80 users, that's a little over $9 a month. That's cheaper than dialup. Oh wait, just realized, it would be 5 complexes total with approx 100 people. Oh well. It would mean a sustainable rate of 87500bps if everyone access the network at full capacity at the same time. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Nate Carlson Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:24 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > probably be a money maker. Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, it'll cause problems. Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > commercial for TCWUG. I like it, let's keep it. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From chrome at real-time.com Fri Jul 19 11:19:47 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020718231241.M47876@madgenius.com>; from jkotek@madgenius.com on Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:12:41PM -0500 References: <20020718231241.M47876@madgenius.com> Message-ID: <20020719090802.A12969@real-time.com> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:12:41PM -0500, Jon Kotek wrote: > Currently I am using Charter Business T1 and I can pretty much do anything I > want, resale is an option. T1 costs have come down, Cable and Wireless will > do 700/month for a PtP T1, however you need to get a router and a CSU/DSU. > Plus you still need to figure out the bandwidth usage. I talked to a Cable & Wireless guy last year, and he was under the impression that C & W was getting out of the T1-level connectivity, and wouldn't sell less than a DS-3. maybe things changed after Sept. 11 and they changed their minds. Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From bneigebauer at attbi.com Fri Jul 19 11:34:14 2002 From: bneigebauer at attbi.com (BN) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003001c22f41$a3b59000$0e62a8c0@slick> Yeah, that's the worst case scenario. I can see why Comcast would want to monitor traffic for a while. It makes sense to optimize the network. They can gather how much traffic, when and where to. Then they can probably establish come relationship with the big providers of the major bandwidth portions. Example: Hey, can I get a connection from my Comcast network to Yahoo's provider direct? How about CNN etc? It would eliminate a lot of traffic having to carried out over third party backbones. The thing that they should have done is TOLD people why they were doing it, what would be, before they started actually doing it. The speed is variable with DSL too. Its just at which point does it become variable. Remember, Qwest and all other ISPs over subscribe their networks. They probably have a bottle neck at their uplink point. That's why I think it's funny when people complain about the variable speeds of cable and tout DSL. IF IT'S ON THE INTERNET IT'S ALL VARIABLE. That's part of the point of TCP/IP. Its packet switched. The only way its not is if you have a dedicated point to point line. Traditionally, phone lines are basically point to point when the call is setup. They literally (back in the day) would patch cable A to socket B and bam, the phone call got routed. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ryberg Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 8:41 AM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? That's a good idea - I was thinking in terms of single occupancy residence - a typical home. That bottom estimate of bandwidth would be the worst case scenario, wouldn't it? So, technically speaking, would the speed be variable ala cable? - Nick -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of BN Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:28 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? I was thinking that the Motorola neighborhood system coupled with traditional 802.11b would work pretty well. I live in an apartment complex. It would be ideal for a few 802.11b access points. It certainly would be a lower cost of entry coupled with enough people together that might make it work. Also, there are about 4 other apartment complexes within 1 or so. Its out of reach for standard 802.11b, but the Motorola neighborhood devices should work. So, with 5 buildings in my complex, each with 48 units. That's 240 units. I could probably get 20 or so to sign on. Multiply that by the 4 other complexes, I would have about 80 users. So, $2100+500*4 for Motorola Plus $1000 in access points That's $5100 for 80 users. Or about $64 + Wireless card per house startup. For access, I'd probably get the DSL Business 7mbps plan from Visi (if available in my area). That's $725 a month. Split amongst 80 users, that's a little over $9 a month. That's cheaper than dialup. Oh wait, just realized, it would be 5 complexes total with approx 100 people. Oh well. It would mean a sustainable rate of 87500bps if everyone access the network at full capacity at the same time. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Nate Carlson Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 4:24 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: RE: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > probably be a money maker. Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, it'll cause problems. Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Reselling RR Business Cable's an option; I don't recall if they prohibit resale, but I know someone running a (small) web hosting business off it. Reliability is pretty good (from my monitoring, well above 99% uptime over the last 6 months), and the price is $99/mo for 1mb symmetrical. That includes 16 IP's, too. But there's also many places that are AT&T land instead of RoadRunner. Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. > I can take this offline if people think it's way off-topic and too > commercial for TCWUG. I like it, let's keep it. :) -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From brent at nordist.net Fri Jul 19 13:03:24 2002 From: brent at nordist.net (Brent J. Nordquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888013@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Austad, Jay wrote: > > > Are those richochet boxes still in the twincities? > > Richochet is planning on rolling the service out again to the public > here soon. I noted with interest about a month ago that the poletop transmitter on the pole in my front yard had finally vanished; they're gone from just about my whole neighborhood now (N. edge of Coon Rapids). (I had great connectivity for... what, 1.5 months, I think.) -- Brent J. Nordquist N0BJN Other contact information: http://www.nordist.net/contact.html From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 19:56:46 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: <20020718200829.GB13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020720232111.GC40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:35:45PM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > Mike - > > You're exactly the kind of person I was hoping would speak up! I wish others would as well :) > Bandwidth consumption is a critical problem - how do you control it > at your ISP? A person pays for the size of their link - 56Kbps, 64Kbps, 640Kbps, etc. Most people do *not* use their link to their full extent all the time. For wireless, you are using the same model, except that this model is completely shared, ala cable. So you have 11Mbps available (802.11b), it is also half duplex (just like normal ethernet), so max theoretical is lower. There is nothing that I know of that can take care of those issues without having a central place to pass packets through that can do the limiting. Anyone who has had a network at their office of 10Mbps will know that 10Mbps disappears very very quick and moving to 100Mbps does wonders, but not forever, so then you move to full duplex and switched networks and things get a lot better. Wireless doesn't have that. Modems, DSL, T1s, point to point connections, and you have the ability to take care of issues on a customer by customer basis based on speed of the link. Wireless doesn't have that either. As I said, I look foreward to the next meeting... -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 19:57:13 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020720232230.GD40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:20:29PM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > 1: I don't wardrive. For now. > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. Then you are part of the wrong group. > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. Then you live in a world shaded blue. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 19:57:21 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020718153056.D1270@techmonkeys.org> References: <20020718080010.B1270@techmonkeys.org> <20020718200350.GA13199@Geeks.ORG> <20020718153056.D1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020720232427.GE40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:30:56PM -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:03:50PM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: > > Hi Mike, haven't heard from you lately.. Yah, very bad things have been going on, fill you in sometime. > > > Given the cable companies penchant for abuse, I would be more > > > comfortable with the GPS address limited. > > > > You're willing to go out and wardrive around to find open access > > points, but you don't want your GPS listed? > > > > Hypocritical? > > I believe he's referring to the threatening letters being sent out > by various ISP's to customers who are merely interested in WUG's, > regardless of if they're interested in the 'overlay network' design > (where their ToS with their ISP wouldn't matter) or the 'hotspot' > design, where there could be some conflict regarding redistribution > of bandwidth. I do not think that is the reason at all. > > Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG > > Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 > > Bold of you =) [6:23pm] 19 [~]:jacobs% ls -l .signature -rw-r--r-- 1 drechsau staff 256 Mar 29 2000 .signature I don't change signatures often at all. My home signature hasn't changed much in years. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 20:26:15 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:17 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888807A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020720233117.GF40299@Geeks.ORG> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 08:37:05AM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > Unfortunately, any solution we come up with will have the some > limitations that cable companies face: limited bandwidth. I disagree. Bandwidth can be had because it is wireless. The technology of wireless today is the limiting factor for the moment. Eventually it could change. > No matter how generous you feel towards your subscribers (free or > otherwise), you're only going to have x number of megabits to share, > and bandwidth throttling and server limitations is the easiest way > to do that. They're probably not the _best_ way, but it's an > option. 11Mbps of half duplex total is pretty limiting.. > Basically, by becoming a provider, we're put in the same hot seat > that the cable execs are frying in right now. If we want to have a > completely open network, that's really great, but how do we deal > with exceptional problems like one of our member's websites getting > slashdotted? That'd blow away availability for everyone else who > simply wants to get out to the net. Wireless providers have nothing to do with cable providers. Theya re vastly different things with vastly different issues involved. Until wireless can have the same penetration and needs it will always be about the lack of technology to make it work well. > I'm playing the devil's advocate on this one, not because I like > trolling this list and just disagreeing with your points - honestly, > I think it's an issue we've got to worry about. I am a troll :) I just like a good argument about real points and real issues. > If I had $5,000+ laying around, I'd be placing an order for my > instant-just-add-water-ISP right now, and damn the bandwidth issues! > - Full speed ahead!! I wish that could be done. My issues are easy: Technology won't scale very well right now. Without the ability to limit and meter will be a massive headache for all. Stupid authentication systems that do not scale or written horribly by someone who just read 'learn C in 21 days' right after installing Linux for the first time 3 days prior. Lack of logging and accounting needed to charge people for what they use. I'll try to be ready for the next meeting with a small agenda or list of things I feel that need to be addressed before some business is put together to offer such services to the masses. Anyone who has run an ISP will understand the issues I have laid out above, or any business owner who is providing pure 'service' as a product. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 20:26:25 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020718152932.M98810@madgenius.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888056@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> <20020718152932.M98810@madgenius.com> Message-ID: <20020720233259.GG40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:29:32PM -0500, Jon Kotek wrote: > You ever notice that most of the ISP's that are still around started > around 1994-95?? After that the market got too tight. If you want > to do Wireless you need to get in soon before the train leaves the > station so to speak. I disagree. The mistakes I made with my first ISP haunted me for a long time. Luck...is why most ISPs are around still. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 20:26:33 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: <20020718201126.GC13199@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020720233411.GH40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:35:46PM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > Mike - > > Does your ISP have any plans or ideas about providing this kind of > service? Sure. We have talked about doing things for some time. Freespace is what we may do. Normal wireless isn't ready... > It would seem like an obvious fit - you've already got the bandwidth > to the 'net, given a good location for an AP, you could practically > sell this stuff door to door (well, maybe you'd have to given our > geography). Yah, we could. > It's interesting that you were the Winternet founder - I had a > friend that used it, and swore by it. He moved to Texas, and used > one of the 'borgs' down there. Poor friend :( -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 20:31:17 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020720234042.GI40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 04:23:33PM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Nick Ryberg wrote: > > In a crazy way, this might be a sort of odd little entrepenuer > > opportunity - get together with 2 other people in your neighborhood - > > split the $2100 cost for a startup AP + 3 subscriber units, and split > > the cost of DSL to the AP. Hmmm... it's still darned expensive for a > > normal user to get it up and running. But once, you got over the > > hump, and had five or six other people sharing the costs, it'd > > probably be a money maker. > > Remember -- reselling DSL is a risky business. > > For one, most cheap DSL accounts (ie, Real Time's TCLUG program) are > for non-commercial use only, and any resale is prohibited. In our > case, if there's not a ton of traffic through the line, we don't > actively go see if the line's being used for commercial use. If it's > sucking a ton of bandwidth, though, and we see it's commercial, > it'll cause problems. VISI.com doesn't allow resale over a DSL link, but commercial activities are allowed. > Also, Qwest DSL circuits are just about their lowest repair > priority, or so I've been told (even below home voice circuits). Yep, most of the time things are decent. But I have seen repair intervals of weeks... > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. Huh? Reselling Qwest is great and dandy. It works! Or are you talking about 'reselling services over Qwest DSL'? > Best bet would probably be to make a deal with a large provider to > get T1's at a discount rate. Chances are we couldn't get them much > cheaper than $900/mo for a full T1 (including local loop), > though.. takes a whole lot of subscribers to cover that cost. And, > again, we'd HAVE to limit customer's bandwidth.. let's say $45/mo > per user, that's 20 users to cover the cost, so the users can't > expect to each be getting T1-ish speeds. Of course, if you've got > users used to RoadRunner, a T1 is going to seem slow, too. I don't know. If you are close to downdtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, your loop charge wont' be high and we'll sell you a PtP T1 for $700/month plus local loop, with loop charge of ~$100 in downtown, and under ~$200 for within 5 miles. A T1 will feel better than cable. Have you ever sat on one directly? :) Higher speeds means for cheaper per Mbps charges. Chicken and egg... -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 20:39:27 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <002f01c22eb2$d1373db0$0e62a8c0@slick> References: <002f01c22eb2$d1373db0$0e62a8c0@slick> Message-ID: <20020720234317.GJ40299@Geeks.ORG> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 06:28:26PM -0500, BN wrote: > For access, I'd probably get the DSL Business 7mbps plan from Visi (if > available in my area). That's $725 a month. PtP T1 is $700/month on a 2 year...and you can resell. Resale from VISI.com over DSL is not allowed. ie: No webhosting, no resale of bandwidth. Sorry :( -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 20 21:05:46 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <003001c22f41$a3b59000$0e62a8c0@slick> References: <003001c22f41$a3b59000$0e62a8c0@slick> Message-ID: <20020720234422.GK40299@Geeks.ORG> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 11:30:48AM -0500, BN wrote: > Example: Hey, can I get a connection from my Comcast network to Yahoo's > provider direct? How about CNN etc? akamai.com - go and research. > It would eliminate a lot of traffic having to carried out over third > party backbones. akamai is your solution... -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From jkotek at madgenius.com Sat Jul 20 21:24:02 2002 From: jkotek at madgenius.com (Jon Kotek) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020720233117.GF40299@Geeks.ORG> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888807A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020720233117.GF40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020720211110.M52081@madgenius.com> The only way right now that I can see limiting bandwidth on wireless is have multiple access points into a switch that does the limiting for you. Not exactly cost effective LOL. Jon > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 08:37:05AM -0500, Nick Ryberg wrote: > > Unfortunately, any solution we come up with will have the some > > limitations that cable companies face: limited bandwidth. > > I disagree. > > Bandwidth can be had because it is wireless. > > The technology of wireless today is the limiting factor for the > moment. Eventually it could change. > > > No matter how generous you feel towards your subscribers (free or > > otherwise), you're only going to have x number of megabits to share, > > and bandwidth throttling and server limitations is the easiest way > > to do that. They're probably not the _best_ way, but it's an > > option. > > 11Mbps of half duplex total is pretty limiting.. > > > Basically, by becoming a provider, we're put in the same hot seat > > that the cable execs are frying in right now. If we want to have a > > completely open network, that's really great, but how do we deal > > with exceptional problems like one of our member's websites getting > > slashdotted? That'd blow away availability for everyone else who > > simply wants to get out to the net. > > Wireless providers have nothing to do with cable providers. > > Theya re vastly different things with vastly different issues involved. > > Until wireless can have the same penetration and needs it will always > be about the lack of technology to make it work well. > > > I'm playing the devil's advocate on this one, not because I like > > trolling this list and just disagreeing with your points - honestly, > > I think it's an issue we've got to worry about. > > I am a troll :) > > I just like a good argument about real points and real issues. > > > If I had $5,000+ laying around, I'd be placing an order for my > > instant-just-add-water-ISP right now, and damn the bandwidth issues! > > - Full speed ahead!! > > I wish that could be done. > > My issues are easy: > > Technology won't scale very well right now. > > Without the ability to limit and meter will be a massive > headache for all. > > Stupid authentication systems that do not scale or written > horribly by someone who just read 'learn C in 21 days' right > after installing Linux for the first time 3 days prior. > > Lack of logging and accounting needed to charge people for > what they use. > > I'll try to be ready for the next meeting with a small agenda or list > of things I feel that need to be addressed before some business is > put together to offer such services to the masses. > > Anyone who has run an ISP will understand the issues I have laid out > above, or any business owner who is providing pure 'service' as a > product. > > -- > Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG > Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 > Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself > through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From poptix at techmonkeys.org Sat Jul 20 22:20:08 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020720211110.M52081@madgenius.com>; from jkotek@madgenius.com on Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 09:11:10PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888807A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020720233117.GF40299@Geeks.ORG> <20020720211110.M52081@madgenius.com> Message-ID: <20020720215659.K1270@techmonkeys.org> On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 09:11:10PM -0500, Jon Kotek wrote: > The only way right now that I can see limiting bandwidth on wireless is have > multiple access points into a switch that does the limiting for you. Not > exactly cost effective LOL. What exactly is hard about it? You require authentication, you limit a person per internet-gateway, each gateway reports total bytecount usage, this reports back to a central database. We could even have a wonderful page that lists the top (internet) bandwidth users, and local bandwidth users. > > Jon > [snip, please trim your posts] -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Sun Jul 21 09:16:01 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020720232230.GD40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:20:29PM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > 1: I don't wardrive. > > For now. Ever. Period. If I were ever going to I would have already. If someone wants to allow me access to their network, I expect that they will find a way to let me know about it. Otherwise I am uninvited and I just don't do it. Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. This time. > > > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. > > Then you are part of the wrong group. > Excuse me, but I have noticed noone in this group who has a demonstrated tendency to abuse such information. Collect it uninvited, yes, but not abuse it. If you _know_ of such people in this group, with _certainty_, it would be irresponsible to withold such information. > > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. > > Then you live in a world shaded blue. > Um, Mike, I know you have been around this business a long time, but I didn't think that prolonged exposure to computers caused brainrot. I can take measures to keep my AP from external abuse, like not running it when I'm not around to use it. Running on low power so my access footprint is not much (any?) larger than my lot. I'll only run a public AP when I have means and method to do so practically. I can NOT protect myself from people who can cut off my upstream connectivity based on suppositions of my possible activities based on my membership in one group or another. Except by not participating in such groups. And that is just not gonna happen. I live in a broadband-limited area. The last round of DSL provisioning changes might have me eligible for 256K ADSL. Maybe. If I'm lucky. So I'm stuck on cable. But that is unacceptable for various reasons, so I am looking at other options. This includes the possibility of helping setup a community wireless network. But if my participation in that gets me cutoff from cable broadband before the network is up I'm back on dialup. It won't kill me to be on dialup, but I would just as soon avoid it if possible. For my purposes 802.11 is not the ideal technical solution, but it seems to be the one most available which bumps it up the list of options considerably. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From dante at plethora.net Sun Jul 21 10:30:18 2002 From: dante at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020720232427.GE40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > I believe he's referring to the threatening letters being sent out > > by various ISP's to customers who are merely interested in WUG's, > > regardless of if they're interested in the 'overlay network' design > > (where their ToS with their ISP wouldn't matter) or the 'hotspot' > > design, where there could be some conflict regarding redistribution > > of bandwidth. > > I do not think that is the reason at all. > Just because my email address is downstream of you doesn't mean that is where my access is. Don't assume. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From cncole at earthlink.net Sun Jul 21 20:12:34 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip Message-ID: <01b001c23116$5646fe90$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Check today's Doonesbury comic strip... --- Chuck Cole Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equpped with 18,000 vaccuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 2 tons. - unknown, Popular Mechanics, March 1949 From andyw at pobox.com Mon Jul 22 06:51:01 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip In-Reply-To: <01b001c23116$5646fe90$6c01a8c0@HPZT>; from cncole@earthlink.net on Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 07:23:55PM -0500 References: <01b001c23116$5646fe90$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <20020722073208.B16468@florence.linkmargin.com> Chuck Cole wrote: > > Check today's Doonesbury comic strip... Here's the URL: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20020721&uc_daction=X -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From nryberg at mendota-bridge.com Mon Jul 22 08:18:43 2002 From: nryberg at mendota-bridge.com (Nick Ryberg) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip In-Reply-To: <20020722073208.B16468@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: This is what infuriates me about the Strib - they clip the first two panels of the comic, which in this case is kind of essential! Grrr.. Freedom of SPEEECH! Wait a minute - I'm off topic. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of Andy Warner Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:32 AM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip Chuck Cole wrote: > > Check today's Doonesbury comic strip... Here's the URL: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=20020721&uc _daction=X -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From natecars at real-time.com Mon Jul 22 09:58:16 2002 From: natecars at real-time.com (Nate Carlson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020720234042.GI40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone > > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. > > Huh? > > Reselling Qwest is great and dandy. It works! > > Or are you talking about 'reselling services over Qwest DSL'? I meant using Qwest DSL as an upstream for a WISP, versus buying a T1. > I don't know. > > If you are close to downdtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, your loop > charge wont' be high and we'll sell you a PtP T1 for $700/month plus > local loop, with loop charge of ~$100 in downtown, and under ~$200 for > within 5 miles. Yeah, $900 was a bit on the high side I guess.. :) > A T1 will feel better than cable. Have you ever sat on one directly? > > :) But of course. :) > Higher speeds means for cheaper per Mbps charges. Chicken and egg... Yup. -- Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 From austad at marketwatch.com Mon Jul 22 13:09:02 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Connecting the wireless net to the internet using cable or DSL might be fine for us while we're testing it, but we're not going to be able to resell it. If it comes to the point where we'd start selling access and charging people, we'd have to get some other form of connectivity, and we're also going to need, at minimum, a couple of /24's. I'd be pissed if I bought a broadband connection and got screwed with a private IP. You gotta spend money to make money. :) Remember, you're not just paying for connectivity when you buy a T1 or other "business class" line, you're also paying for reliability and support if you have problems with it, and you get an SLA so you can get money out of them if there are problems. If your cable modem or DSL goes down, it'll get fixed whenever they get around to it. The other option here is not to buy a T1, but to colo your network equipment at a local ISP, and get an access-point on their roof, or at least a wireless uplink to a main access point in a higher location. That way, you avoid paying loop fees, and you're limited by the bandwidth of the ISP, not your line. Of course, you'll pay for that bandwidth, so you need to make sure your pricing scheme can cover it, or need to make sure that users are sufficiently limited (set them up as burstable or something). Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: Nate Carlson [mailto:natecars@real-time.com] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:38 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came > from someone > > > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. > > > > Huh? > > > > Reselling Qwest is great and dandy. It works! > > > > Or are you talking about 'reselling services over Qwest DSL'? > > I meant using Qwest DSL as an upstream for a WISP, versus buying a T1. > > > I don't know. > > > > If you are close to downdtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, your loop > > charge wont' be high and we'll sell you a PtP T1 for > $700/month plus > > local loop, with loop charge of ~$100 in downtown, and > under ~$200 for > > within 5 miles. > > Yeah, $900 was a bit on the high side I guess.. :) > > > A T1 will feel better than cable. Have you ever sat on one > directly? > > > > :) > > But of course. :) > > > Higher speeds means for cheaper per Mbps charges. Chicken > and egg... > > Yup. > > -- > Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-> time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 22 17:28:11 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:18 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:49:56PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> > If it comes to the point where we'd start selling access and charging > people, we'd have to get some other form of connectivity, and we're also > going to need, at minimum, a couple of /24's. not necessarily. depends what kind of service we're offering. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to just use a 10-net for our city-wide wireless network. we'd be able to run servers or whatever for our own benefit; and if you *really* wanted to make them visible to the outside world (and couldn't get a wired connection for some reason), what about begging or borrowing some loose IP addresses from someone with a gateway willing to forward them on to your internal address? help me understand what you're saying: what did you have in mind, that we need public IP addresses for? certainly there are plenty of uses for them; but we may be in something of a bandwidth-constrained situation fairly quickly, and so servers/IP phones may have their functionality curtailed severely if they're depending on wireless and don't have a landline to provide (sort-of-guaranteed) bandwidth. I've also heard this sort of scheme discussed as a way to do roaming wireless... you have a static IP address on your device, and whenever you get handed off to a new access point, that AP just routes the traffic back across the network (using BGP or whatever to find the route) to whatever the former gateway was. Was it Spencer who brought that idea up? Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From joel at helgeson.com Mon Jul 22 17:36:56 2002 From: joel at helgeson.com (Joel R. Helgeson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip In-Reply-To: <01b001c23116$5646fe90$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: <000001c2312d$819b8ea0$027dd8d8@SECURITY> Here's the strip... -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Cole Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 7:24 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: [TCWUG] WUG-warriors revealed in today's Doonesbury comic strip Check today's Doonesbury comic strip... --- Chuck Cole Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equpped with 18,000 vaccuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vaccuum tubes and perhaps weigh 2 tons. - unknown, Popular Mechanics, March 1949 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Doonesbury.gif Type: image/gif Size: 152225 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20020722/3e3845f6/Doonesbury.gif From jkotek at madgenius.com Mon Jul 22 18:35:40 2002 From: jkotek at madgenius.com (Jon Kotek) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020722191519.M82857@madgenius.com> I might be interested in offering my T1. My only problem is that it is located in Apple Valley, not exactly center of the Twin Cities. At this time it is only 33% utilized. Jon > Connecting the wireless net to the internet using cable or DSL might > be fine for us while we're testing it, but we're not going to be > able to resell it. If it comes to the point where we'd start selling > access and charging people, we'd have to get some other form of > connectivity, and we're also going to need, at minimum, a couple of > /24's. I'd be pissed if I bought a broadband connection and got > screwed with a private IP. You gotta spend money to make money. :) > > Remember, you're not just paying for connectivity when you buy a T1 > or other "business class" line, you're also paying for reliability > and support if you have problems with it, and you get an SLA so you > can get money out of them if there are problems. If your cable > modem or DSL goes down, it'll get fixed whenever they get around to it. > > The other option here is not to buy a T1, but to colo your network equipment > at a local ISP, and get an access-point on their roof, or at least a > wireless uplink to a main access point in a higher location. That > way, you avoid paying loop fees, and you're limited by the bandwidth > of the ISP, not your line. Of course, you'll pay for that bandwidth, > so you need to make sure your pricing scheme can cover it, or need > to make sure that users are sufficiently limited (set them up as > burstable or something). > > Jay > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nate Carlson [mailto:natecars@real-time.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:38 AM > > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came > > from someone > > > > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > Reselling Qwest is great and dandy. It works! > > > > > > Or are you talking about 'reselling services over Qwest DSL'? > > > > I meant using Qwest DSL as an upstream for a WISP, versus buying a T1. > > > > > I don't know. > > > > > > If you are close to downdtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, your loop > > > charge wont' be high and we'll sell you a PtP T1 for > > $700/month plus > > > local loop, with loop charge of ~$100 in downtown, and > > under ~$200 for > > > within 5 miles. > > > > Yeah, $900 was a bit on the high side I guess.. :) > > > > > A T1 will feel better than cable. Have you ever sat on one > > directly? > > > > > > :) > > > > But of course. :) > > > > > Higher speeds means for cheaper per Mbps charges. Chicken > > and egg... > > > > Yup. > > > > -- > > Nate Carlson | Phone : (952)943-8700 > > http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > > https://mailman.real-> time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From poptix at techmonkeys.org Mon Jul 22 20:09:19 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: ; from dante+tcwug@plethora.net on Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500 References: <20020720232230.GD40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020721154017.O1270@techmonkeys.org> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 03:20:29PM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > > 1: I don't wardrive. > > > > For now. > > Ever. Period. > > If I were ever going to I would have already. > If someone wants to allow me access to their > network, I expect that they will find a way to let me > know about it. Otherwise I am uninvited and I just > don't do it. > > Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal > affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. > This time. Now I'm going to pipe up, I do war drive, I make some great maps that are interesting to me, war driving is driving around detecting wireless networks, simple as that, it does not necessarily mean that I'm hopping on them, or doing anything illegal. Some people do actually war drive simply to keep themselves aware of what's going on in the 2.4ghz band. It's like driving around neighborhoods looking at cars parked in the driveway, i can note what kind of cars they are, and be impressed by the ones that go vroom-vroom, it doesn't mean I hopped in for a test drive. There have been quite a few people who go war driving that found things such as best buy's insecure network (that's still insecure), AP's at lockheed martin, banks, medical institutions, etc. an attempt to notify people at those places is made, and is sometimes successful. (Lockheed Martin got rid of their insecure AP, best buy turned off their access points for a while, then changed SSID (not secure), the medical inst. and banks that I know of have ignored it because there was no publicity) Most people have cars capable of going ~100mph, it doesn't mean they do it. (Yes, I have hopped on access points before, but really, I can go home and sit on the couch to play on the net, it's really not interesting anymore.) -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From austad at marketwatch.com Mon Jul 22 20:55:21 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Well, if you're offering service using this, you need to look at this from a support perspective too. If we give everyone a private address behind a NAT device, we're going to have all sorts of people calling because they can't play Warcraft III, or whatever the game of the day is. It does offer the benefit of a bit more security for people on the network, but in all reality, 90% of users don't care about security and they just want their online games to work. Many people who get broadband get it specifically to play games on. There is some firewall trickery that we could probably use to get most protocols to work, but there are still going to be things that won't. As far as roaming goes, using public IP's isn't going to change the functionality of that at all. Your border router routes for your public address range, and your routers on the inside handle the individual routes for each ip and tell the border router(s) how to get there. This can get messy though depending on how many subscribers you have and what routing protocol you use. You don't want to be flooding LSA's all over the network everytime someone connects, disconnects, or switches to a new access point. I think Richochet handled this by making all of their access points connect to a central bridge so it was all one big broadcast domain. That way, they didn't have to handle route propagation everytime someone switched to a different AP. Plus, how viable is roaming with 802.11 or Canopy? GSM 1800/1900 has special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the doppler effect, since many people talk on their phones while driving. Has the 802.11 spec or Canopy been developed with mobile (as in driving) users in consideration? While GSM has standard provisions for this, you will lose your signal when the distance between you and a repeater is changing faster than 280km/hr. While no one normally drives that fast, if wireless data protocols were not designed with this in mind the speed at which you will lose your signal may be considerably less. Roaming is a nice to have, but for the most part it's probably not going to be a reality because you would literally have to blanket the city with access points, the cost would be astronomical. Just look at Ricochet, they did it, but then went bankrupt in the process. A lot of that was their marketing department's fault, but their mistakes make a nice lesson for others. Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom [mailto:chrome@real-time.com] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:16 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > > > If it comes to the point where we'd start selling access > and charging > > people, we'd have to get some other form of connectivity, > and we're also > > going to need, at minimum, a couple of /24's. > > not necessarily. depends what kind of service we're offering. > I don't think > it's entirely unreasonable to just use a 10-net for our > city-wide wireless > network. we'd be able to run servers or whatever for our own > benefit; and if > you *really* wanted to make them visible to the outside world > (and couldn't > get a wired connection for some reason), what about begging > or borrowing > some loose IP addresses from someone with a gateway willing > to forward them > on to your internal address? > > help me understand what you're saying: what did you have in > mind, that we > need public IP addresses for? certainly there are plenty of > uses for them; > but we may be in something of a bandwidth-constrained situation fairly > quickly, and so servers/IP phones may have their > functionality curtailed > severely if they're depending on wireless and don't have a landline to > provide (sort-of-guaranteed) bandwidth. > > I've also heard this sort of scheme discussed as a way to do roaming > wireless... you have a static IP address on your device, and > whenever you get > handed off to a new access point, that AP just routes the traffic back > across the network (using BGP or whatever to find the route) > to whatever the > former gateway was. > Was it Spencer who brought that idea up? > > Carl Soderstrom. > -- > Network Engineer > Real-Time Enterprises > www.real-time.com > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 22:51:43 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020720232427.GE40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723043853.GA64770@Geeks.ORG> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > I do not think that is the reason at all. > > Just because my email address is downstream of you > doesn't mean that is where my access is. Why would I assume such? > Don't assume. You are assuming I did. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:10:02 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020721154017.O1270@techmonkeys.org> References: <20020720232230.GD40299@Geeks.ORG> <20020721154017.O1270@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020723044819.GC64770@Geeks.ORG> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 03:40:17PM -0500, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > Now I'm going to pipe up, I do war drive, I make some great maps > that are interesting to me, war driving is driving around detecting > wireless networks, simple as that, it does not necessarily mean that > I'm hopping on them, or doing anything illegal. Some people do > actually war drive simply to keep themselves aware of what's going > on in the 2.4ghz band. There is some assumption people are making that might not be 'valid'. First, wardriving does not mean you are for sure stealing bandwidth, but I can say that not everyone is nice and not everyone is willing to pay and find it easier to steal *anything*. Second, wardriving is like the old days of people wardialing - you are looking for 'openness'. I used to wardial in the old days, having an applecat and some software made it easy, then the USR HST came out, and new software made it easy there as well. Why? Well, I was looking for openness. > It's like driving around neighborhoods looking at cars parked in the > driveway, i can note what kind of cars they are, and be impressed by > the ones that go vroom-vroom, it doesn't mean I hopped in for a test > drive. And there are those that would assume you are 'casing' - looking for your next thrill ride. > Most people have cars capable of going ~100mph, it doesn't mean they > do it. Most people have knives in their house, doens't mean they are going to cut chicken tonight with it. Point? There is none. > (Yes, I have hopped on access points before, but really, I can go > home and sit on the couch to play on the net, it's really not > interesting anymore.) Thrill for you is over...that isn't true for everyone. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:10:15 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: References: <20020720234042.GI40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723044947.GD64770@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:38:09AM -0500, Nate Carlson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > Only way I'd be comfortable reselling DSL is if it came from someone > > > like Covad (SDSL), but since Covad's on shaky grounds.. *shrugs*. > > > > Huh? > > > > Reselling Qwest is great and dandy. It works! > > > > Or are you talking about 'reselling services over Qwest DSL'? > > I meant using Qwest DSL as an upstream for a WISP, versus buying a T1. Ah, K. I don't know of any local ISp that allows such. DSL would not be the right thing anyway for lotso reasons. > > I don't know. > > > > If you are close to downdtown Minneapolis or St. Paul, your loop > > charge wont' be high and we'll sell you a PtP T1 for $700/month plus > > local loop, with loop charge of ~$100 in downtown, and under ~$200 for > > within 5 miles. > > Yeah, $900 was a bit on the high side I guess.. :) Perhaps, but it takes money to make money. > > A T1 will feel better than cable. Have you ever sat on one directly? > > > > :) > > But of course. :) Did you get burned? :) > > Higher speeds means for cheaper per Mbps charges. Chicken and egg... > > Yup. That's the hard part about most business ventures. :( -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:10:23 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020723045041.GE64770@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:49:56PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Remember, you're not just paying for connectivity when you buy a T1 > or other "business class" line, you're also paying for reliability > and support if you have problems with it, and you get an SLA so you > can get money out of them if there are problems. If your cable > modem or DSL goes down, it'll get fixed whenever they get around to > it. Oh that is so true... > The other option here is not to buy a T1, but to colo your network > equipment at a local ISP, and get an access-point on their roof, or > at least a wireless uplink to a main access point in a higher > location. That way, you avoid paying loop fees, and you're limited > by the bandwidth of the ISP, not your line. Of course, you'll pay > for that bandwidth, so you need to make sure your pricing scheme can > cover it, or need to make sure that users are sufficiently limited > (set them up as burstable or something). Yep, that is another option, possibly cheaper to start with, and maybe even the long run. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:10:32 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> Message-ID: <20020723045219.GF64770@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 06:15:42PM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > help me understand what you're saying: what did you have in mind, that we > need public IP addresses for? certainly there are plenty of uses for them; > but we may be in something of a bandwidth-constrained situation fairly > quickly, and so servers/IP phones may have their functionality curtailed > severely if they're depending on wireless and don't have a landline to > provide (sort-of-guaranteed) bandwidth. Cache servers rule. You can save a TON of bandwidth that way. Also, throwing local content onto the network instead of heading out for it will make a big difference. Peering with people can help there immensely. > I've also heard this sort of scheme discussed as a way to do roaming > wireless... you have a static IP address on your device, and whenever you get > handed off to a new access point, that AP just routes the traffic back > across the network (using BGP or whatever to find the route) to whatever the > former gateway was. > Was it Spencer who brought that idea up? Valid idea, requires real access points with real routers in-between. Of course, BGP would be overkill, but the thought is valid. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:15:32 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020720232230.GD40299@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723044426.GB64770@Geeks.ORG> On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal > affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. > This time. Get thicker skin. Really. > > > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > > > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. > > > > Then you are part of the wrong group. > > Excuse me, but I have noticed noone in this group who > has a demonstrated tendency to abuse such information. > Collect it uninvited, yes, but not abuse it. You are assuming that the people here are going to abuse it. I do not assume such, my address is below, I do not try to hide. > If you _know_ of such people in this group, with _certainty_, > it would be irresponsible to withold such information. Why? I am not your father trying to protect you from someone who will bully you. > > > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > > > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. > > > > Then you live in a world shaded blue. > > Um, Mike, I know you have been around this business a long > time, but I didn't think that prolonged exposure to computers > caused brainrot. It doesn't. Do you really think a cable exec cares about you at all? I don't. While a HS kid might, you have valuables, you have a hot daughter, you have a car that is sweet. Why do you think you rate so highly with cable execs anyway? > I can take measures to keep my AP from external abuse, > like not running it when I'm not around to use it. Running > on low power so my access footprint is not much (any?) > larger than my lot. I'll only run a public AP when I have > means and method to do so practically. Since WEP is a farce (yes, I use it as well), any AP is an open issue, just like running any type of server on the 'net in general. Don't think that turning the power down protects you. Kind of like saying: I am on DSL, why would anyone want to steal bandwidth from me? Answer: Because they can. > I can NOT protect myself from people who can cut off my > upstream connectivity based on suppositions of my possible > activities based on my membership in one group or another. > Except by not participating in such groups. Okay, and? > I live in a broadband-limited area. The last round of DSL > provisioning changes might have me eligible for 256K ADSL. > Maybe. If I'm lucky. That would be wonderful. DSL kicks booty, it is the best thing I have seen for home and small business use ever. Sure, cable is faster, but you have no choice in ISP or extra services. DSL may not have the speed...but it has everything else you would want in a beer, and less! > So I'm stuck on cable. You aren't stuck on cable...you just said otherwise above. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:20:57 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020722191519.M82857@madgenius.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722191519.M82857@madgenius.com> Message-ID: <20020723045438.GG64770@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 07:15:19PM -0500, Jon Kotek wrote: > I might be interested in offering my T1. My only problem is that it is > located in Apple Valley, not exactly center of the Twin Cities. At this time > it is only 33% utilized. If someone can come up with something that isn't hackery, is not 100% Linux based (I have this issue with Linux - sorry, sometimes my opinion on this outweighs logic - again, sorry), and works in a way that allows real people real control over things, I'll offer up bandwidth and colocation to get it done. Currently, I have seen nothing that isn't hackery or completely Linux biased. And I love Bobby - just don't like his choice in OSes anymore :) -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 22 23:21:10 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020723045609.GH64770@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Well, if you're offering service using this, you need to look at > this from a support perspective too. If we give everyone a private > address behind a NAT device, we're going to have all sorts of people > calling because they can't play Warcraft III, or whatever the game > of the day is. It does offer the benefit of a bit more security for > people on the network, but in all reality, 90% of users don't care > about security and they just want their online games to work. Many > people who get broadband get it specifically to play games on. > There is some firewall trickery that we could probably use to get > most protocols to work, but there are still going to be things that > won't. Uhm, with the weird latency things I have seen with wireless, online gaming would be the least of my worries. [big snipper] Excellent questions. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From tanner at real-time.com Mon Jul 22 23:47:02 2002 From: tanner at real-time.com (Bob Tanner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020723045438.GG64770@Geeks.ORG>; from drechsau@geeks.org on Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:54:38PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722191519.M82857@madgenius.com> <20020723045438.GG64770@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723003307.H23877@real-time.com> Quoting Mike Horwath (drechsau@geeks.org): > If someone can come up with something that isn't hackery, is not 100% > Linux based (I have this issue with Linux - sorry, sometimes my > opinion on this outweighs logic - again, sorry), and works in a way > that allows real people real control over things, I'll offer up > bandwidth and colocation to get it done. > > Currently, I have seen nothing that isn't hackery or completely Linux > biased. > > And I love Bobby - just don't like his choice in OSes anymore :) You want something that can (gotten from the poorly named thread Richochet boxes?): provide QoS (ala traffic shapping?) accounting (ala RADIUS-like stuff?) logging (what do you want to log?) authentication Something that works on other those "other" operating systems That a list of basic (drechsau) requirements ? -- Bob Tanner | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 http://www.tcwug.org, Minnesota, Wireless | Coding isn't a crime. Key fingerprint = AB15 0BDF BCDE 4369 5B42 1973 7CF1 A709 2CC1 B288 From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Jul 23 00:25:23 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:19 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <002e01c2320f$1f6ef9a0$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Existence of a voice level doppler shift in a supposedly digital scheme like GSM is hard to accept... > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Austad, Jay > ... GSM 1800/1900 has > special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the > doppler effect, > since many people talk on their phones while driving. ... Maybe I'm missing a big piece of the picture (and the specs), but this doesn't make sense. GSM supposedly digitizes the voice at the handset, then sends and receives digital packets. The modulation for the digital encoding would see doppler, but the voice digitizing and recovery in the handset would not. The modulation only does ones and zeros and probably with some compressed error correcting code, so the modulation (subcarrier) doppler is irrelevant for bit recovery. "Channelizing" or some such might be affected by the RF carrier frequency having a doppler shift, but PLLs probably nullify that up to some speed such as you suggested. Just what GSM doppler are you discussing? Just curious.. Chuck From austad at marketwatch.com Tue Jul 23 00:36:00 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A7@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > If someone can come up with something that isn't hackery, is not 100% > Linux based (I have this issue with Linux - sorry, sometimes my > opinion on this outweighs logic - again, sorry), and works in a way > that allows real people real control over things, I'll offer up > bandwidth and colocation to get it done. > > Currently, I have seen nothing that isn't hackery or completely Linux > biased. Well, linux is a great platform to develop most of this stuff on, and most of the software out there is already written for linux. However, I've been using some Netscreen firewalls lately, and for logging, authentication, qos, traffic shaping, and access control (including scheduled access control), they are probably the perfect thing for this. Their cheapest model is the 5xp at $495 (the most expensive is over $100k). I have one here at home and it's more than enough for this. That little 5xp has more features than a $30,000 cisco PIX. Just plug your AP into one side, and your net connection into the other. If you're trying to save money, a linux solution might be the way to go, but $495 is probably what you'd spend on the hardware to run linux on anyway. Personally, if we were going to use a general purpose OS for this, I'd rather use FreeBSD. Jay From austad at marketwatch.com Tue Jul 23 01:41:09 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A8@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> I was reading some info on the GSM specs about a week ago, and it said: Phase and frequency synchronization must allow for Doppler shift for vehicle speeds up to 250km/h as well as for frequency standard drift, and timing advance to compensate for propagation delay due to round trips for paths, in cells up to 35km radius. The carrier frequencies are spaced 200khz apart. Since it's late, I don't really want to figure out how much the doppler shift is, but I would assume that it's enough to where it's possible to get too close to one of the other frequencies used. Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Cole [mailto:cncole@earthlink.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 1:05 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? > > > Existence of a voice level doppler shift in a supposedly > digital scheme like > GSM is hard to accept... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > > Behalf Of Austad, Jay > > > ... GSM 1800/1900 has > > special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the > > doppler effect, > > since many people talk on their phones while driving. ... > > Maybe I'm missing a big piece of the picture (and the specs), but this > doesn't make sense. GSM supposedly digitizes the voice at > the handset, then > sends and receives digital packets. The modulation for the > digital encoding > would see doppler, but the voice digitizing and recovery in > the handset > would not. The modulation only does ones and zeros and > probably with some > compressed error correcting code, so the modulation > (subcarrier) doppler is > irrelevant for bit recovery. "Channelizing" or some such > might be affected > by the RF carrier frequency having a doppler shift, but PLLs probably > nullify that up to some speed such as you suggested. Just > what GSM doppler > are you discussing? > > Just curious.. > > Chuck > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From poptix at techmonkeys.org Tue Jul 23 05:57:56 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020723063546.Q1270@techmonkeys.org> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > As far as roaming goes, using public IP's isn't going to change the > functionality of that at all. Your border router routes for your public > address range, and your routers on the inside handle the individual routes > for each ip and tell the border router(s) how to get there. This can get > messy though depending on how many subscribers you have and what routing > protocol you use. You don't want to be flooding LSA's all over the network > everytime someone connects, disconnects, or switches to a new access point. > I think Richochet handled this by making all of their access points connect > to a central bridge so it was all one big broadcast domain. That way, they > didn't have to handle route propagation everytime someone switched to a > different AP. I can speak from personal experience here, very large broadcast domains like this do /not/ work well, our best bet would be sectors, roaming between those sectors would require either release/renew, MASQ/NAT, or mobile IP type setups. > > Plus, how viable is roaming with 802.11 or Canopy? GSM 1800/1900 has > special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the doppler effect, > since many people talk on their phones while driving. Has the 802.11 spec > or Canopy been developed with mobile (as in driving) users in consideration? > While GSM has standard provisions for this, you will lose your signal when > the distance between you and a repeater is changing faster than 280km/hr. > While no one normally drives that fast, if wireless data protocols were not > designed with this in mind the speed at which you will lose your signal may > be considerably less. Roaming is a nice to have, but for the most part it's > probably not going to be a reality because you would literally have to > blanket the city with access points, the cost would be astronomical. Just > look at Ricochet, they did it, but then went bankrupt in the process. A lot > of that was their marketing department's fault, but their mistakes make a > nice lesson for others. In a flat, moderately 'green' area, I was able to drive from Mankato to Wilmar without losing connectivity except in a few dead spots. 60-70mph doesn't seem to cause any problems, of course, when you're going that fast, you shouldn't be playing with your wireless devices anyway =) The area in question had access points on water towers, grain elevators and various other 150-250 foot structures with an 8db omnidirecitonal antenna and directional antennas pointing at weak spots, or up/down a highway. Overall it works well, if you don't spend $1200 for breezecom radios that don't even support WEP. A little bit of frequency coordination, and a little clue go a long way. > Jay -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 06:12:01 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020723045219.GF64770@Geeks.ORG> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> <20020723045219.GF64770@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723114947.GA35720@botwerks.org> when last we saw our hero (Monday, Jul 22, 2002), Mike Horwath was madly tapping out: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 06:15:42PM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom > wrote: > > help me understand what you're saying: what did you have in mind, > > that we need public IP addresses for? certainly there are plenty > > of uses for them; but we may be in something of a > > bandwidth-constrained situation fairly quickly, and so servers/IP > > phones may have their functionality curtailed severely if they're > > depending on wireless and don't have a landline to provide > > (sort-of-guaranteed) bandwidth. > > Cache servers rule. > > You can save a TON of bandwidth that way. > > Also, throwing local content onto the network instead of heading out > for it will make a big difference. > > Peering with people can help there immensely. > > > I've also heard this sort of scheme discussed as a way to do > > roaming wireless... you have a static IP address on your device, > > and whenever you get handed off to a new access point, that AP > > just routes the traffic back across the network (using BGP or > > whatever to find the route) to whatever the former gateway was. > > Was it Spencer who brought that idea up? > > Valid idea, requires real access points with real routers > in-between. > > Of course, BGP would be overkill, but the thought is valid. it's called mobile ip and there aren't a whole lot of clients for it and there is still the need for home gateways. fortunately there are clients for linux and *bsd. i'm not sure what the status of this support is for windows and mac os *. last i heard microsoft had released a beta mobile ip client for windows nt. i'm not sure what the current state of this is. it might bear reviewing if folks would like the functionality. although it must be pointed out that this would further burden the network since the tunneling mechanisms used would be shuffling packets around suboptimally. in a situation where b/w is at a premium this might not be an acceptable solution. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Tue Jul 23 07:36:01 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020723044426.GB64770@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal > > affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. > > This time. > > Get thicker skin. > > Really. Try to avoid assuming that everyone is a thief. Really. > > > > > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > > > > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. > > > > > > Then you are part of the wrong group. > > > > Excuse me, but I have noticed noone in this group who > > has a demonstrated tendency to abuse such information. > > Collect it uninvited, yes, but not abuse it. > > You are assuming that the people here are going to abuse it. > > I do not assume such, my address is below, I do not try to hide. I am assuming that the people _here_ are _not_ going to abuse it. I provided the information for the people _here_. > > > If you _know_ of such people in this group, with _certainty_, > > it would be irresponsible to withold such information. > > Why? > > I am not your father trying to protect you from someone who will bully > you. If you know of wrongdoing it is nearly as bad keeping your mouth shut as it would be actively participating. > > > > > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > > > > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. > > > > > > Then you live in a world shaded blue. > > > > Um, Mike, I know you have been around this business a long > > time, but I didn't think that prolonged exposure to computers > > caused brainrot. > > It doesn't. > > Do you really think a cable exec cares about you at all? I don't. Neither do I. I believe that they care about their profits, and if I fall into a bin that they have marked "unprofitable" they will drop my service without so much as a howdy-do. > > While a HS kid might, you have valuables, you have a hot daughter, you > have a car that is sweet. > I lock my doors. I make an effort at network security. I recognize that not all people are honest, but there are areas where I can protect myself, and areas where I can't. > Why do you think you rate so highly with cable execs anyway? I know that I don't, yet I am dependent on them for -get this- HIGH SPEED access. > > > I can take measures to keep my AP from external abuse, > > like not running it when I'm not around to use it. Running > > on low power so my access footprint is not much (any?) > > larger than my lot. I'll only run a public AP when I have > > means and method to do so practically. > > Since WEP is a farce (yes, I use it as well), any AP is an open issue, > just like running any type of server on the 'net in general. > > Don't think that turning the power down protects you. Don't think that locking your doors protects you, after all, professional thieves have lockpicks and can walk right through that door. But the kid down the street who wants your stereo isn't a professional thief, is he? Keeping the power down is a bit like keeping your car in the garage. It doesn't prevent anyone from stealing it, but it makes it harder to see. > > Kind of like saying: > > I am on DSL, why would anyone want to steal bandwidth from me? > > Answer: Because they can. Yep. But not everyone is a thief. > > > I can NOT protect myself from people who can cut off my > > upstream connectivity based on suppositions of my possible > > activities based on my membership in one group or another. > > Except by not participating in such groups. > > Okay, and? > And cable execs in New York have been doing exactly that. Extrapolate. > > I live in a broadband-limited area. The last round of DSL > > provisioning changes might have me eligible for 256K ADSL. > > Maybe. If I'm lucky. > > That would be wonderful. It probably would, but the only supplier that claims it is Qwest, and I have had bad luck with their access quotes before (what put me on cable to begin with...). Like I said, it is more than a bit iffy. Every quote I've attempted from anyone else comes up null. > > DSL kicks booty, it is the best thing I have seen for home and small > business use ever. Sure, cable is faster, but you have no choice in > ISP or extra services. DSL may not have the speed...but it has > everything else you would want in a beer, and less! > Of course since I'm likely to be falling back to dialup you might have a point. > > So I'm stuck on cable. > > You aren't stuck on cable...you just said otherwise above. > -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 08:16:01 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020723044426.GB64770@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020723135839.GC35720@botwerks.org> if i might interject here - i believe that there are mechanisms which might be useful for folks that want to host access points for a co-op but are concerned about violation of their AUP. a discussion of tunneling mechanisms might be in order for our next meeting. they definitely violate the intent (and quite likely the explicit wording) of an AUP but may provide a mechanism for working around some thorny issues. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Daniel Taylor was madly tapping out: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:01:19AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > > > Any implication otherwise could be taken as a personal > > > affront, but given the medium I will not take offense. > > > This time. > > > > Get thicker skin. > > > > Really. > > Try to avoid assuming that everyone is a thief. > > Really. > > > > > > > > 2: I am reluctant to share positively identifying information > > > > > with people that have a demonstrated tendency to abuse it. > > > > > > > > Then you are part of the wrong group. > > > > > > Excuse me, but I have noticed noone in this group who > > > has a demonstrated tendency to abuse such information. > > > Collect it uninvited, yes, but not abuse it. > > > > You are assuming that the people here are going to abuse it. > > > > I do not assume such, my address is below, I do not try to hide. > > I am assuming that the people _here_ are _not_ going to > abuse it. I provided the information for the people _here_. > > > > > > If you _know_ of such people in this group, with _certainty_, > > > it would be irresponsible to withold such information. > > > > Why? > > > > I am not your father trying to protect you from someone who will bully > > you. > > If you know of wrongdoing it is nearly as bad keeping your > mouth shut as it would be actively participating. > > > > > > > > I would rather trust the entire student body of the highschool near > > > > > my house than a single Cable exec with access to my network. > > > > > > > > Then you live in a world shaded blue. > > > > > > Um, Mike, I know you have been around this business a long > > > time, but I didn't think that prolonged exposure to computers > > > caused brainrot. > > > > It doesn't. > > > > Do you really think a cable exec cares about you at all? I don't. > > Neither do I. I believe that they care about their profits, > and if I fall into a bin that they have marked "unprofitable" > they will drop my service without so much as a howdy-do. > > > > > While a HS kid might, you have valuables, you have a hot daughter, you > > have a car that is sweet. > > > I lock my doors. I make an effort at network security. > I recognize that not all people are honest, but there > are areas where I can protect myself, and areas where I can't. > > > Why do you think you rate so highly with cable execs anyway? > > I know that I don't, yet I am dependent on them for > -get this- HIGH SPEED access. > > > > > > I can take measures to keep my AP from external abuse, > > > like not running it when I'm not around to use it. Running > > > on low power so my access footprint is not much (any?) > > > larger than my lot. I'll only run a public AP when I have > > > means and method to do so practically. > > > > Since WEP is a farce (yes, I use it as well), any AP is an open issue, > > just like running any type of server on the 'net in general. > > > > Don't think that turning the power down protects you. > > Don't think that locking your doors protects you, after > all, professional thieves have lockpicks and can > walk right through that door. But the kid down the > street who wants your stereo isn't a professional > thief, is he? > > Keeping the power down is a bit like keeping > your car in the garage. It doesn't prevent anyone > from stealing it, but it makes it harder to see. > > > > > Kind of like saying: > > > > I am on DSL, why would anyone want to steal bandwidth from me? > > > > Answer: Because they can. > > Yep. But not everyone is a thief. > > > > > I can NOT protect myself from people who can cut off my > > > upstream connectivity based on suppositions of my possible > > > activities based on my membership in one group or another. > > > Except by not participating in such groups. > > > > Okay, and? > > > And cable execs in New York have been doing exactly that. > Extrapolate. > > > > I live in a broadband-limited area. The last round of DSL > > > provisioning changes might have me eligible for 256K ADSL. > > > Maybe. If I'm lucky. > > > > That would be wonderful. > > It probably would, but the only supplier that claims > it is Qwest, and I have had bad luck with their access > quotes before (what put me on cable to begin with...). > > Like I said, it is more than a bit iffy. > > Every quote I've attempted from anyone else comes up null. > > > > > DSL kicks booty, it is the best thing I have seen for home and small > > business use ever. Sure, cable is faster, but you have no choice in > > ISP or extra services. DSL may not have the speed...but it has > > everything else you would want in a beer, and less! > > > Of course since I'm likely to be falling back to dialup > you might have a point. > > > > So I'm stuck on cable. > > > > You aren't stuck on cable...you just said otherwise above. > > > > -- > Daniel Taylor > dante@plethora.net > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Tue Jul 23 08:41:50 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020723043853.GA64770@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Mike Horwath wrote: > > > > > I do not think that is the reason at all. > > > > Just because my email address is downstream of you > > doesn't mean that is where my access is. > > Why would I assume such? > > > Don't assume. > > You are assuming I did. > OK, you just casually go around accusing people of lying and talk like you have personnally been offended by them. That makes sense. You obviously made _some_ assumptions about me with your initial reply, and I have no idea where you got them from. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From chrome at real-time.com Tue Jul 23 09:17:41 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020723114947.GA35720@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:49:47AM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> <20020723045219.GF64770@Geeks.ORG> <20020723114947.GA35720@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020723095718.G805@real-time.com> > it might bear reviewing if folks would like the functionality. > although it must be pointed out that this would further burden the > network since the tunneling mechanisms used would be shuffling packets > around suboptimally. in a situation where b/w is at a premium this > might not be an acceptable solution. do you have any good links to discussions of it? I'm somewhat curious about it. Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Tue Jul 23 09:23:44 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: <20020723135839.GC35720@botwerks.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, steve ulrich wrote: > > if i might interject here - i believe that there are mechanisms which > might be useful for folks that want to host access points for a co-op > but are concerned about violation of their AUP. > > a discussion of tunneling mechanisms might be in order for our next > meeting. they definitely violate the intent (and quite likely the > explicit wording) of an AUP but may provide a mechanism for working > around some thorny issues. > Actually, Mike has some very good points WRT bandwidth control and access control. And (as if it weren't obvious to all and sundry by now) I have trouble with "gray market" bandwidth. The AUP may be aggregious and wrong, but it is _their_ network, and they can set whatever terms of access they want that the law allows. We have some good starting points for access control, but there is obviously work necessary there. Does anyone have a good handle on the firewalling rules necessary for bandwidth control? -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From austad at marketwatch.com Tue Jul 23 10:37:01 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888121@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/732/Tech/mobile/ip/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom [mailto:chrome@real-time.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:57 AM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? > > > > it might bear reviewing if folks would like the functionality. > > although it must be pointed out that this would further burden the > > network since the tunneling mechanisms used would be > shuffling packets > > around suboptimally. in a situation where b/w is at a premium this > > might not be an acceptable solution. > > do you have any good links to discussions of it? I'm somewhat > curious about it. > > Carl Soderstrom. > -- > Network Engineer > Real-Time Enterprises > www.real-time.com _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-> time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 15:35:51 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020723135839.GC35720@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020723154042.GA37753@botwerks.org> when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Daniel Taylor was madly tapping out: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, steve ulrich wrote: > > > > > if i might interject here - i believe that there are mechanisms which > > might be useful for folks that want to host access points for a co-op > > but are concerned about violation of their AUP. > > > > a discussion of tunneling mechanisms might be in order for our next > > meeting. they definitely violate the intent (and quite likely the > > explicit wording) of an AUP but may provide a mechanism for working > > around some thorny issues. > > > Actually, Mike has some very good points WRT bandwidth control and > access control. And (as if it weren't obvious to all and sundry by > now) I have trouble with "gray market" bandwidth. The AUP may be > aggregious and wrong, but it is _their_ network, and they can set > whatever terms of access they want that the law allows. i wholeheartedly agree with that. however, there are some folks that are intent on participating and willing to go down the path of possible AUP violation but don't want it traceable back to them. these tools have very legitimate uses and if people want to use these tools in such a fashion i suppose i could look the other way. > We have some good starting points for access control, but there is > obviously work necessary there. Does anyone have a good handle on > the firewalling rules necessary for bandwidth control? the rub here is that the firewalling rules are rather platform specific. i can give you the rules for doing this sort of thing on an IOS or JunOS based platform and i'm pretty close to having all of the rules squared away for doing this w/pf and altq (i haven't had a chance to test this with pagent yet) and it's trivial to do w/dummynet. per our discussion on this at the second meeting - we should come up with turnkey mechanisms for doing this for a handful of platforms to facilitate this. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 15:36:08 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: (long) coordinated deployment - was: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <20020723135418.GB35720@botwerks.org> ok - i'm going to fork this thread back to the root and my goal here is to look for some clarification. i've been on the road for the past bit here and i'm just getting caught up. there's also a brief (or not so brief) discussion of a possible mechanism for increasing footprint by building a relationshop with an isp. somewhere along the line there was a bifurcation into a discussion regarding setting up a "business" and the conversation (d)evolved into a discussion of product offerings and deployment mechanisms. that's cool - it just left me scratching me head here as to what the intentions of the group were. co-op wireless is, i think, an excellent idea. but the tone of the conversation has left me with the impression that folks are interested in an isp type arrangement. while this is all well and good i believe that there are some nagging concerns here. mostly geographic in nature as well as from a business perspective. i don't think our geography is particularly well suited to a widespread roaming deployment. there are some locations which might be particularly well suited to this (the 55 corridor comes to mind with its preponderance of grain elevators) but there's a tremendous amount of foliage and a largely flat metro topology. it's for this reason that i've been particularly interested in hotspot or what i'll refer to as tied mesh networks vs. the overlay. as the technologies and the group mature i sort of assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be an eventual migration to an overlay or tying of the individual mesh networks together. all of these network types, be they hotspots, meshes (admittedly just a small overlay) and pure overlay have elements in common. these elements are addressable problems for the group as a whole. mike has alluded to some of the challenges in one of his emails, all of which have been raised here before. there are viable mechanisms for addressing all of them. now - it bears noting that the folks who have cable connections will have some exposure when it comes to the sharing of b/w and potentially violating their AUP. however, there are mechanisms that can be used to mitigate this. additionally, a good case can be made for supporting local ISPs which have demonstrated a willingness to work with a local user group and nurture a grass-roots adoption and deployment of the technology. these same isps can also host vpn access concentrators and such to facilitate the extension of the footprint for folks that might be concerned with violating their immediate providers aup. there is an opportunity for a forward thinking ISP in the twin cities to adopt an interesting business plan and extend their footprint and revenue base at a fairly nominal expenditure of effort and resources. there are a handful of isps in nyc that have aligned themselves with the local wireless group and have been benefitting from the relationship. i would suggest something a bit different it goes something like this ... - isp harvests their database of dsl and t1+ subscribers and determines where they have customers in locations of interest. customers which may be in interesting locations like the lakes, near coffee shops, well travelled corridors, etc. they determine which customers are currently capable of getting higher speeds from Q but aren't. they make an offer to the customers in these areas for the following... - the customer can purchase the higher capacity connection from the ILEC and the isp will in turn open up the VC on their side to allow for the full throughput of the connection at no additional cost. - the isp in turn offers to put a wireless AP (or works with a local wireless group to install one) on the premise. this would need to be something that is fairly turnkey and doesn't involve the use of external antennas or anything that might make the lawyers go crazy with. the AP rate limits the overall throughput of the wifi traffic to insure that it won't impact the customer (and in fact they incent the customer by insuring that they get much more b/w for free - well at the cost of the increased L1 capacity to the ILEC) - in turn the ISP sells wireless access to their subscribers at a nominal monthly upcharge if they're using their nodes. publishing a list of node locations and leveraging their existing AAA mechanisms to bill for the service. this is a nice deal for their customers since they get more locations where they can get inet access, they have a single bill, and the ISP (and the wireless group) get a nice mechanism for extending their footprint of hotspots. - this is good for the isp from the perspective that they're actually doing something new and innovative, it has a fair amount of appeal to the local market and they can market the hell out of it. it's a value add for their business customers (who can now work from anywhere and in a fairly predictable fashion vpn back to their office). clearly, all of the technological building blocks are there it's just a matter of putting them together appropriately and building the relationships between the parties. there's a fair amount of social finangling and CYA required but it's a matter of looking at the objective and turning the pieces around to build the solution. there are some holes here but i've got a meeting in a couple minutes and this is all i've been able to squeeze out over the course of the morning. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Matthew S. Hallacy was madly tapping out: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > > > As far as roaming goes, using public IP's isn't going to change > > the functionality of that at all. Your border router routes for > > your public address range, and your routers on the inside handle > > the individual routes for each ip and tell the border router(s) > > how to get there. This can get messy though depending on how many > > subscribers you have and what routing protocol you use. You don't > > want to be flooding LSA's all over the network everytime someone > > connects, disconnects, or switches to a new access point. I think > > Richochet handled this by making all of their access points > > connect to a central bridge so it was all one big broadcast > > domain. That way, they didn't have to handle route propagation > > everytime someone switched to a different AP. > > I can speak from personal experience here, very large broadcast > domains like this do /not/ work well, our best bet would be sectors, > roaming between those sectors would require either release/renew, > MASQ/NAT, or mobile IP type setups. > > > > > Plus, how viable is roaming with 802.11 or Canopy? GSM 1800/1900 > > has special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the > > doppler effect, since many people talk on their phones while > > driving. Has the 802.11 spec or Canopy been developed with mobile > > (as in driving) users in consideration? While GSM has standard > > provisions for this, you will lose your signal when the distance > > between you and a repeater is changing faster than 280km/hr. > > While no one normally drives that fast, if wireless data protocols > > were not designed with this in mind the speed at which you will > > lose your signal may be considerably less. Roaming is a nice to > > have, but for the most part it's probably not going to be a > > reality because you would literally have to blanket the city with > > access points, the cost would be astronomical. Just look at > > Ricochet, they did it, but then went bankrupt in the process. A > > lot of that was their marketing department's fault, but their > > mistakes make a nice lesson for others. > > In a flat, moderately 'green' area, I was able to drive from Mankato > to Wilmar without losing connectivity except in a few dead spots. > 60-70mph doesn't seem to cause any problems, of course, when you're > going that fast, you shouldn't be playing with your wireless devices > anyway =) > > The area in question had access points on water towers, grain > elevators and various other 150-250 foot structures with an 8db > omnidirecitonal antenna and directional antennas pointing at weak > spots, or up/down a highway. > > Overall it works well, if you don't spend $1200 for breezecom radios > that don't even support WEP. A little bit of frequency coordination, > and a little clue go a long way. > { snipped - misc .signatures } -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 20:14:21 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:20 2005 Subject: (long) coordinated deployment - was: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? Message-ID: <20020723135418.GB35720@botwerks.org> ok - i'm going to fork this thread back to the root and my goal here is to look for some clarification. i've been on the road for the past bit here and i'm just getting caught up. there's also a brief (or not so brief) discussion of a possible mechanism for increasing footprint by building a relationshop with an isp. somewhere along the line there was a bifurcation into a discussion regarding setting up a "business" and the conversation (d)evolved into a discussion of product offerings and deployment mechanisms. that's cool - it just left me scratching me head here as to what the intentions of the group were. co-op wireless is, i think, an excellent idea. but the tone of the conversation has left me with the impression that folks are interested in an isp type arrangement. while this is all well and good i believe that there are some nagging concerns here. mostly geographic in nature as well as from a business perspective. i don't think our geography is particularly well suited to a widespread roaming deployment. there are some locations which might be particularly well suited to this (the 55 corridor comes to mind with its preponderance of grain elevators) but there's a tremendous amount of foliage and a largely flat metro topology. it's for this reason that i've been particularly interested in hotspot or what i'll refer to as tied mesh networks vs. the overlay. as the technologies and the group mature i sort of assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that there would be an eventual migration to an overlay or tying of the individual mesh networks together. all of these network types, be they hotspots, meshes (admittedly just a small overlay) and pure overlay have elements in common. these elements are addressable problems for the group as a whole. mike has alluded to some of the challenges in one of his emails, all of which have been raised here before. there are viable mechanisms for addressing all of them. now - it bears noting that the folks who have cable connections will have some exposure when it comes to the sharing of b/w and potentially violating their AUP. however, there are mechanisms that can be used to mitigate this. additionally, a good case can be made for supporting local ISPs which have demonstrated a willingness to work with a local user group and nurture a grass-roots adoption and deployment of the technology. these same isps can also host vpn access concentrators and such to facilitate the extension of the footprint for folks that might be concerned with violating their immediate providers aup. there is an opportunity for a forward thinking ISP in the twin cities to adopt an interesting business plan and extend their footprint and revenue base at a fairly nominal expenditure of effort and resources. there are a handful of isps in nyc that have aligned themselves with the local wireless group and have been benefitting from the relationship. i would suggest something a bit different it goes something like this ... - isp harvests their database of dsl and t1+ subscribers and determines where they have customers in locations of interest. customers which may be in interesting locations like the lakes, near coffee shops, well travelled corridors, etc. they determine which customers are currently capable of getting higher speeds from Q but aren't. they make an offer to the customers in these areas for the following... - the customer can purchase the higher capacity connection from the ILEC and the isp will in turn open up the VC on their side to allow for the full throughput of the connection at no additional cost. - the isp in turn offers to put a wireless AP (or works with a local wireless group to install one) on the premise. this would need to be something that is fairly turnkey and doesn't involve the use of external antennas or anything that might make the lawyers go crazy with. the AP rate limits the overall throughput of the wifi traffic to insure that it won't impact the customer (and in fact they incent the customer by insuring that they get much more b/w for free - well at the cost of the increased L1 capacity to the ILEC) - in turn the ISP sells wireless access to their subscribers at a nominal monthly upcharge if they're using their nodes. publishing a list of node locations and leveraging their existing AAA mechanisms to bill for the service. this is a nice deal for their customers since they get more locations where they can get inet access, they have a single bill, and the ISP (and the wireless group) get a nice mechanism for extending their footprint of hotspots. - this is good for the isp from the perspective that they're actually doing something new and innovative, it has a fair amount of appeal to the local market and they can market the hell out of it. it's a value add for their business customers (who can now work from anywhere and in a fairly predictable fashion vpn back to their office). clearly, all of the technological building blocks are there it's just a matter of putting them together appropriately and building the relationships between the parties. there's a fair amount of social finangling and CYA required but it's a matter of looking at the objective and turning the pieces around to build the solution. there are some holes here but i've got a meeting in a couple minutes and this is all i've been able to squeeze out over the course of the morning. when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Matthew S. Hallacy was madly tapping out: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > > > As far as roaming goes, using public IP's isn't going to change > > the functionality of that at all. Your border router routes for > > your public address range, and your routers on the inside handle > > the individual routes for each ip and tell the border router(s) > > how to get there. This can get messy though depending on how many > > subscribers you have and what routing protocol you use. You don't > > want to be flooding LSA's all over the network everytime someone > > connects, disconnects, or switches to a new access point. I think > > Richochet handled this by making all of their access points > > connect to a central bridge so it was all one big broadcast > > domain. That way, they didn't have to handle route propagation > > everytime someone switched to a different AP. > > I can speak from personal experience here, very large broadcast > domains like this do /not/ work well, our best bet would be sectors, > roaming between those sectors would require either release/renew, > MASQ/NAT, or mobile IP type setups. > > > > > Plus, how viable is roaming with 802.11 or Canopy? GSM 1800/1900 > > has special provisions for handling frequency shifts due to the > > doppler effect, since many people talk on their phones while > > driving. Has the 802.11 spec or Canopy been developed with mobile > > (as in driving) users in consideration? While GSM has standard > > provisions for this, you will lose your signal when the distance > > between you and a repeater is changing faster than 280km/hr. > > While no one normally drives that fast, if wireless data protocols > > were not designed with this in mind the speed at which you will > > lose your signal may be considerably less. Roaming is a nice to > > have, but for the most part it's probably not going to be a > > reality because you would literally have to blanket the city with > > access points, the cost would be astronomical. Just look at > > Ricochet, they did it, but then went bankrupt in the process. A > > lot of that was their marketing department's fault, but their > > mistakes make a nice lesson for others. > > In a flat, moderately 'green' area, I was able to drive from Mankato > to Wilmar without losing connectivity except in a few dead spots. > 60-70mph doesn't seem to cause any problems, of course, when you're > going that fast, you shouldn't be playing with your wireless devices > anyway =) > > The area in question had access points on water towers, grain > elevators and various other 150-250 foot structures with an 8db > omnidirecitonal antenna and directional antennas pointing at weak > spots, or up/down a highway. > > Overall it works well, if you don't spend $1200 for breezecom radios > that don't even support WEP. A little bit of frequency coordination, > and a little clue go a long way. > { snipped - misc .signatures } -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From dante+tcwug at plethora.net Tue Jul 23 20:51:18 2002 From: dante+tcwug at plethora.net (Daniel Taylor) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? In-Reply-To: <002e01c2320f$1f6ef9a0$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Message-ID: On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Chuck Cole wrote: > Existence of a voice level doppler shift in a supposedly digital scheme like > GSM is hard to accept... > I think he is referring to doppler on the RF signal possibly causing a loss of the signal. However, given sources moving at .00000002C I don't think we are looking at a doppler shift that exceeds the RF band width of the connection. -- Daniel Taylor dante@plethora.net From chrome at real-time.com Tue Jul 23 20:52:26 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572A5@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020723095148.F805@real-time.com> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:26:24PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Well, if you're offering service using this, you need to look at this from a > support perspective too. ok. I think I see where you're coming from. To me 'providing service' meant "offering connectivity to a private community of geeks, in exchange for a few dollars to cover costs, to anyone clueful enough to be able to set up gear at least somewhat on their own (or ask politely enough to get help to do so)". we'd offer access to game servers, FTP servers, IRC servers; by dint of people wanting to share such services with their friends across the wireless network. anything larger than several hundred geeks, gets too impersonal and unwieldy (compare the Internet of several years ago; or the BBS scene; to the Net of today); so I'm kind of opposed to it. In short, being an ISP does not bring happiness; being part of a community of clueful people comes much closer. That's just my view, tho. Feel free to discuss. :) > There is some firewall trickery that we could probably use > to get most protocols to work, but there are still going to be things that > won't. I view this as not necessarily being a bad thing. it provides a natural mechanism for controlling bandwith use. > As far as roaming goes, using public IP's isn't going to change the > functionality of that at all. Your border router routes for your public > address range, and your routers on the inside handle the individual routes > for each ip and tell the border router(s) how to get there. true. point taken. > This can get > messy though depending on how many subscribers you have and what routing > protocol you use. yes. I am aware of that. :) as the admirable Mr. Horwath pointed out; my original statement mentioning BGP may not be the best way. It's just the first thing that came to mind. OSPF or something else may be better, but I don't know squat about dynamic routing protocols (I half-slept through those chapters in my networking classes, and even what I didn't sleep through didn't sink in very deep). On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:52:19PM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: > Cache servers rule. > You can save a TON of bandwidth that way. absolutely. we'd definitely be well-served by putting a number of those in at the gateways. > Also, throwing local content onto the network instead of heading out > for it will make a big difference. exactly. this is why I discussed having our own game/IRC/FTP servers. This is one of the things that Bob T. really wants out of a city-wide network -- cut down on the usage of our own T1s by letting people leech FTP across the wireless link. > Peering with people can help there immensely. in what way are you thinking? I've always been thinking along the lines of having a city-wide network that has numerous gateways to the wired world. (of course, we need to make sure that we don't inadvertently become a peering link for the wired world -- another consideration for a dynamic routing system). Carl Soderstrom. -- Network Engineer Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 21:49:23 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] http://maps.tcwug.org In-Reply-To: References: <20020723135839.GC35720@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020723154042.GA37753@botwerks.org> when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Daniel Taylor was madly tapping out: > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, steve ulrich wrote: > > > > > if i might interject here - i believe that there are mechanisms which > > might be useful for folks that want to host access points for a co-op > > but are concerned about violation of their AUP. > > > > a discussion of tunneling mechanisms might be in order for our next > > meeting. they definitely violate the intent (and quite likely the > > explicit wording) of an AUP but may provide a mechanism for working > > around some thorny issues. > > > Actually, Mike has some very good points WRT bandwidth control and > access control. And (as if it weren't obvious to all and sundry by > now) I have trouble with "gray market" bandwidth. The AUP may be > aggregious and wrong, but it is _their_ network, and they can set > whatever terms of access they want that the law allows. i wholeheartedly agree with that. however, there are some folks that are intent on participating and willing to go down the path of possible AUP violation but don't want it traceable back to them. these tools have very legitimate uses and if people want to use these tools in such a fashion i suppose i could look the other way. > We have some good starting points for access control, but there is > obviously work necessary there. Does anyone have a good handle on > the firewalling rules necessary for bandwidth control? the rub here is that the firewalling rules are rather platform specific. i can give you the rules for doing this sort of thing on an IOS or JunOS based platform and i'm pretty close to having all of the rules squared away for doing this w/pf and altq (i haven't had a chance to test this with pagent yet) and it's trivial to do w/dummynet. per our discussion on this at the second meeting - we should come up with turnkey mechanisms for doing this for a handful of platforms to facilitate this. -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 23 22:00:21 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes? In-Reply-To: <20020723095718.G805@real-time.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088880F2@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020722181542.E805@real-time.com> <20020723045219.GF64770@Geeks.ORG> <20020723114947.GA35720@botwerks.org> <20020723095718.G805@real-time.com> Message-ID: <20020723154520.GB37753@botwerks.org> outside of the cisco mobile-ip support - i know of the monarch project[1] (out of cmu) and the mosquitonet project[2]. charles perkins (nokia research fellow) has been doing this for some time and i believe his page [3] has a lot of information on it. it's quite workable it's just a pita to set up. ;-) when last we saw our hero (Tuesday, Jul 23, 2002), Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom was madly tapping out: > > it might bear reviewing if folks would like the functionality. > > although it must be pointed out that this would further burden the > > network since the tunneling mechanisms used would be shuffling > > packets around suboptimally. in a situation where b/w is at a > > premium this might not be an acceptable solution. > > do you have any good links to discussions of it? I'm somewhat > curious about it. > references ---------- [1] - http://www.monarch.cs.cmu.edu/ [2] - http://mosquitonet.stanford.edu/software/mip.html [3] - http://www.iprg.nokia.com/~charliep/ -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From mail at RobWentworth.com Tue Jul 23 23:16:33 2002 From: mail at RobWentworth.com (Rob Wentworth) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? References: Message-ID: Couldn't a moving vehicle doppler shift the phase enough to cause multipath distortion or even to cause signal strength to vary with the beat frequency between it and other reflected or stationary signals? There may also be reflected signals shifted both up (forward to travel) and down (aft of travel). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Taylor" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Chuck Cole wrote: > > > Existence of a voice level doppler shift in a supposedly digital scheme like > > GSM is hard to accept... > > > I think he is referring to doppler on the RF signal possibly causing a > loss of the signal. However, given sources moving at .00000002C I don't > think we are looking at a doppler shift that exceeds the RF band width > of the connection. > > > -- > Daniel Taylor > dante@plethora.net > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From cncole at earthlink.net Tue Jul 23 23:54:01 2002 From: cncole at earthlink.net (Chuck Cole) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Doppler on what? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003101c232d3$caeea180$6c01a8c0@HPZT> Jay originally mentioned/implied voice having doppler was the concern, not the RF carrier and subcarrier concerns. He clarified later that it might be a channel spacing or similar concern: this is much more likely. You are partly right: the nominal RF bandwidth per se isn't a doppler concern, but the phase-locked loops on carriers, carrier spacings, and/or subcarriers in some similar RF systems are very narrow band control loops so that just a few Hertz of doppler *might be* a loop bandwidth (ie, correction rate) concern... GSM might use those control structures, and those would have doppler specs applying to bit or packet error rates. I quit a GSM service for unrelated reasons, but my Sprint PCS (different scheme) has only a few locations here with physical cell boundary sensitivities, and no form of user-discernable doppler up through commercial aircraft speeds. The physics of whether the voice level is affected by doppler or whether the modulation schemes might be is interesting. Some PhDs have devoted their professional lives to this kind of stuff and written books on the subtleties of channels and these "modems". If any doppler sensitivity is there in GSM, it might have been an interesting technology trade-off decision made long ago for the standards and economy. Doppler sensitivity is not a "necessary" condition in digitized voice schemes or we'd actually hear some effect in many kinds of military aircraft and NASA spacecraft scenarios. --- Chuck Cole > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org]On > Behalf Of Daniel Taylor > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Chuck Cole wrote: > > > Existence of a voice level doppler shift in a supposedly > digital scheme like > > GSM is hard to accept... > > > I think he is referring to doppler on the RF signal possibly causing a > loss of the signal. However, given sources moving at > .00000002C I don't > think we are looking at a doppler shift that exceeds the RF band width > of the connection. > > > -- > Daniel Taylor > dante@plethora.net > > _______________________________________________ From austad at marketwatch.com Thu Jul 25 21:36:09 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888130@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > > There is some firewall trickery that we could probably use > > to get most protocols to work, but there are still going to > be things > > that won't. > I view this as not necessarily being a bad thing. it > provides a natural mechanism for controlling bandwith use. I strongly oppose blocking any traffic at all. If you pay for an internet connection, you should be able to pass any traffic you want through it unmolested. Traffic shaping is easy to implement though, so I don't forsee any bandwidth problems that can't be solved with a few rules. > Horwath pointed out; my original statement mentioning BGP may > not be the best way. It's just the first thing that came to > mind. OSPF or something else may be better, but I don't know > squat about dynamic routing protocols BGP is typically used as an external routing protocol. The only reason you would want to run BGP internally is if you have a large network with internet connections all over in different places, then you could propagate your BGP tables internally and traffic would always leave the network at the best internet connection for the network you are trying to reach. OSPF is not necessarily optimal for mobile IP though either as it will flood the network everytime someone connects or disconnects if you are propagating /32's. I don't really see this as being a mobile ip type network though, it would require vast amounts of equipment and money. The reason Ricochet was able to do it is because their product does not need direct line of sight and has a range of up to a mile. 802.11 (don't know about Canopy), almost always needs line of sight, and your range won't be more than a couple hundred feet without a directional antenna, and those are hard to keep pointed while you're driving. :) (I half-slept through > those chapters in my networking classes, and even what I > didn't sleep through didn't sink in very deep). > > Carl Soderstrom. > -- > Network Engineer Scary. :P From poptix at techmonkeys.org Thu Jul 25 22:18:27 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888130@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:08:17AM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888130@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020725230913.G16733@techmonkeys.org> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:08:17AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > I strongly oppose blocking any traffic at all. If you pay for an internet > connection, you should be able to pass any traffic you want through it > unmolested. Traffic shaping is easy to implement though, so I don't forsee > any bandwidth problems that can't be solved with a few rules. I think it's going to be a per-node basic, as has been said, this isn't necessarily for providing internet, it's for building the network. Internet access might be a side effect. > I don't really see this as being a mobile ip type network though, it > would require vast amounts of equipment and money. The reason Ricochet was > able to do it is because their product does not need direct line of sight > and has a range of up to a mile. 802.11 (don't know about Canopy), almost > always needs line of sight, and your range won't be more than a couple > hundred feet without a directional antenna, and those are hard to keep > pointed while you're driving. :) > Eh? With a 5db magmount (maxrad) that had about 2db cable loss (3db at the radio) I was easily able to stay connected to an 8db 100mw or so radio sitting ~150 feet in the air for miles.. of course, if you're using your wireless card with the pcb antenna, and an access point with a 3db antenna, you'll get a few hundred feet. The full cost of an access point, with an 8db omni, will run as low as $150 (donated 486+ with PCMCIA or PCI wireless card), range can be extended by using either an amp, or a larger antenna (12db perhaps). I think people fail to understand how easy it is to propogate a signal many many miles. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chrome at real-time.com Fri Jul 26 00:02:02 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888130@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:08:17AM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888130@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020726004045.A22131@real-time.com> > I strongly oppose blocking any traffic at all. If you pay for an internet > connection, you should be able to pass any traffic you want through it > unmolested. I fully agree with you. however, I'm considering a situation where we're not necessarily out to give universal, unrestricted Internet access via wireless link; but we could (with less cost -- no need to hassle with getting /24s) provide limited Internet access. how about this: if we somehow get ahold of some public IPs, let's use them. if we don't have them, let's build a system that provides limited functionality with private IPs; at least until we can get public ones. if someone wants to make a go of a commercial enterprise out of this; let them worry about it. :) > BGP is typically used as an external routing protocol. The only reason you > would want to run BGP internally is if you have a large network with > internet connections all over in different places, then you could propagate > your BGP tables internally and traffic would always leave the network at the > best internet connection for the network you are trying to reach. you know, that does actually sound like what we're trying to do. :) (at least as I see it). > (I half-slept through > > those chapters in my networking classes, and even what I > > didn't sleep through didn't sink in very deep). > > > > Carl Soderstrom. > > -- > > Network Engineer > > Scary. :P yeah. just goes to show that most of what you go to college for is the social experience, and the piece of paper that tells the HR people that someone has tried to beat you with a cluestick. :) Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From austad at marketwatch.com Fri Jul 26 08:48:27 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > > BGP is typically used as an external routing protocol. The only > > reason you would want to run BGP internally is if you have a large > > network with internet connections all over in different > places, then > > you could propagate your BGP tables internally and traffic would > > always leave the network at the best internet connection > for the network you are trying to reach. > > you know, that does actually sound like what we're > trying to do. :) (at least as I see it). Yeah, but the problem here is that you are unlikely to convince your ISP to give you a BGP session over your DSL or cable modem. So running BGP on your internal network will do you no good if you can't get tables from the outside world. We'd need to get a bunch of T1's for this to work. Also, we'd need to get routers which could actually run BGP without pegging the CPU, and lots of memory or we'll have to summarize the tables quite a bit. Zebra supports BGP, but in my experience, Zebra is flaky. I haven't used BGP with it, but with OSPF and RIP, it has problems. Jay From chrome at real-time.com Fri Jul 26 10:31:03 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:17:43AM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> > Yeah, but the problem here is that you are unlikely to convince your ISP to > give you a BGP session over your DSL or cable modem. So running BGP on your > internal network will do you no good if you can't get tables from the > outside world. true. Real-Time might be willing to accomodate you; but I don't know about other ISPs (Visi? Bitstream?) > we'd need to get routers which could actually run BGP without pegging the > CPU, and lots of memory or we'll have to summarize the tables quite a bit. > Zebra supports BGP, but in my experience, Zebra is flaky. I haven't used > BGP with it, but with OSPF and RIP, it has problems. well, it's open source, we know what to do. :) buying Cisco gear (even used) would probably put the whole affair out of the price range of anything but a commercial enterprise. personally, I"m in favor of the "90% solution". knowing that the last 10% of performance (speed, reliability, whatever) often costs 10x as much, I'm in favor of building something as cheaply as reasonable (not necessarily as cheaply as possible), that can be grown with better equipment as it becomes available. first let's make it work, then let's make it work well. :) Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From austad at marketwatch.com Fri Jul 26 13:25:12 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888210@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > > I haven't used BGP with it, but with OSPF and RIP, it has problems. > well, it's open source, we know what to do. :) > buying Cisco gear (even used) would probably put the > whole affair out of the price range of anything but a > commercial enterprise. Yeah, well there are plenty of other manufacturers out there that make comparable routers at 1/3 the price of Cisco. Don't get me wrong, I think they make a decent product, but it's way overpriced, even with a fat discount. > personally, I"m in favor of the "90% solution". knowing > that the last 10% of performance (speed, reliability, > whatever) often costs 10x as much, I'm in favor of building > something as cheaply as reasonable (not necessarily as > cheaply as possible), that can be grown with better equipment > as it becomes available. > first let's make it work, then let's make it work well. :) Awww yeah, linux and BSD routers. :) From drechsau at geeks.org Fri Jul 26 21:56:24 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020727032040.GD11144@Geeks.ORG> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:17:43AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > Yeah, but the problem here is that you are unlikely to convince your ISP to > give you a BGP session over your DSL or cable modem. So running BGP on your > internal network will do you no good if you can't get tables from the > outside world. We'd need to get a bunch of T1's for this to work. Also, > we'd need to get routers which could actually run BGP without pegging the > CPU, and lots of memory or we'll have to summarize the tables quite a bit. > Zebra supports BGP, but in my experience, Zebra is flaky. I haven't used > BGP with it, but with OSPF and RIP, it has problems. 2610 can do this... Hell, I just decomissioned a 2501 that had 11 BGP peers doing only local BGP networking, and that is in essence what would be required. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From drechsau at geeks.org Fri Jul 26 21:56:42 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> Message-ID: <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:12:20AM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > Yeah, but the problem here is that you are unlikely to convince your ISP to > > give you a BGP session over your DSL or cable modem. So running BGP on your > > internal network will do you no good if you can't get tables from the > > outside world. > > true. Real-Time might be willing to accomodate you; but I don't know > about other ISPs (Visi? Bitstream?) Sure, I would set up most anything to operate. Over DSL, though, kind of yucky... > buying Cisco gear (even used) would probably put the whole affair > out of the price range of anything but a commercial enterprise. Bah, 2501 with 16MB of RAM on ebay should only be a couple hundred bux. I know we could offlaod a few of these... > first let's make it work, then let's make it work well. :) Hackery should not be settled for. If you have time to do it, you have time to do it right. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From sulrich at botwerks.org Fri Jul 26 22:26:59 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888210@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA008888210@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020726205837.GA72214@botwerks.org> when last we saw our hero (Friday, Jul 26, 2002), Austad, Jay was madly tapping out: > > > I haven't used BGP with it, but with OSPF and RIP, it has > > > problems. > > well, it's open source, we know what to do. :) buying Cisco > > gear (even used) would probably put the whole affair out of > > the price range of anything but a commercial enterprise. > > Yeah, well there are plenty of other manufacturers out there that > make comparable routers at 1/3 the price of Cisco. Don't get me > wrong, I think they make a decent product, but it's way overpriced, > even with a fat discount. actually - i've been liking zebra a lot lately. i've been quite impressed with the quality of the BGP and OSPF implementations, and i've got access to routers with really good implementations of both routing prototols. > > personally, I"m in favor of the "90% solution". knowing that > > the last 10% of performance (speed, reliability, whatever) > > often costs 10x as much, I'm in favor of building something as > > cheaply as reasonable (not necessarily as cheaply as > > possible), that can be grown with better equipment as it > > becomes available. first let's make it work, then let's make > > it work well. :) > > Awww yeah, linux and BSD routers. :) running a routing protocol on the gateway for the locations is a very workable solution and likely the most cost effective given that these will more likely than not be cheap unix boxen. the real issue for this deployment is the ability to reach one location from another. do we have any realistic deployment locations for p2p links? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From austad at marketwatch.com Fri Jul 26 23:14:01 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572EE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > 2610 can do this... > > Hell, I just decomissioned a 2501 that had 11 BGP peers doing only > local BGP networking, and that is in essence what would be required. So were you doing summarization on the upstream peers? I don't think there's any way a 2501 could handle summarizing a full table itself, and it surely can't fit a whole table in memory. Jay From sulrich at botwerks.org Sat Jul 27 07:13:02 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:21 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572EE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572EE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020727075952.A23054@botwerks.org> you're making the assumption that the router in question was receiving a full Internet BGP feed. i believe that mike is referring to the mcia.org router which was announcing local networks only between the local ISPs. as such the requirements were the respective prefix announcements only. roughly 90 odd routes. even w/the most aggressive route filtering a 2501 is not going to be able to keep up with the processing requirements to handle a full feed these days. it does bear noting that unless you're interested in transport to these network locations only, you're not going to be able to select the optimal route out of the network to destinations which you're not receiving prefix infomration for. put another way - you'd be able to tell what your best route to sihope, visi, real-time, insert local isp here, is. but you would not be able to know what the best route to /. is. this would require us to get an AS number (or make sure that we can coordinate with the upstreams to use an appropriate private AS number) as well, which isn't so much of a problem but it does beg the question of who's the responsible party and what organization is there for the coordination of these items? btw - public AS numbers aren't free the costs are pretty trivial but there is some cost associated with it. when last we saw our hero (Friday, Jul 26, 2002), Austad, Jay was madly tapping out: > > 2610 can do this... > > > > Hell, I just decomissioned a 2501 that had 11 BGP peers doing only > > local BGP networking, and that is in essence what would be > > required. > > So were you doing summarization on the upstream peers? I don't > think there's any way a 2501 could handle summarizing a full table > itself, and it surely can't fit a whole table in memory. > -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From drechsau at geeks.org Sat Jul 27 07:18:44 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572EE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572EE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020727130310.GB19434@Geeks.ORG> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:56:19PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > > 2610 can do this... > > > > Hell, I just decomissioned a 2501 that had 11 BGP peers doing only > > local BGP networking, and that is in essence what would be required. > > So were you doing summarization on the upstream peers? I don't > think there's any way a 2501 could handle summarizing a full table > itself, and it surely can't fit a whole table in memory. Notice I said that it was 11 BGP peers doing only local BGP. It is a peering point I run right now that I call the NIP or network interchange point. There is no Internet access offered, it is a pure local peering point. Current size is: nip-1.mpls>show ip bgp sum BGP router identifier 209.98.0.128, local AS number 7461 BGP table version is 1056, main routing table version 1056 89 network entries and 128 paths using 12017 bytes of memory 21 BGP path attribute entries using 2396 bytes of memory Dampening enabled. 0 history paths, 0 dampened paths 27 received paths for inbound soft reconfiguration BGP activity 231/142 prefixes, 457/329 paths Now'days, though, the peer count is down as ISPs move onto the borg or become direct customers of ours :( Current system, though, is now a Cisco 4700M with 64MB of RAM. Anyone can connect, only requires the entity to provide their own connectivity, usually FR is just fine, but we do have one peer that brought their own PtP into our space. Peering good, I like'em peering. -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From bryan at edgar.sector14.net Sat Jul 27 09:14:44 2002 From: bryan at edgar.sector14.net (Bryan Halvorson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] LMR-400 coax Message-ID: <200207271454.g6REsRK08713@twenty.sector14.net> I have a contact down in Dallas who is selling 1000 foot spools of LMR-400 coax for $320 with shipping. This is about $80 under distributor cost. About 2 months ago I paid $.72 a foot for some of it. If we're going to be putting any kind of network together we're going to need a fair amount of it and I was wondering what people thought of the group buying one or more spools of it. Or since most people don't need an entire 1000 foot spool, several people could get together and split a spool. I've got a spool coming but it'll get used up pretty quickly for some friends and my Ham Radio needs. I can get good RF Engineering N connectors with gold center pins for $4-5 each from a local distributor and I've got the correct crimper for them. I can forward the message I received about it to people individually or to the list if people want. -- Bryan Halvorson bryan@edgar.sector14.net From austad at marketwatch.com Sat Jul 27 12:26:06 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888821A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> > this would require us to get an AS number (or make sure that > we can coordinate with the upstreams to use an appropriate private AS > number) as well, which isn't so much of a problem but it does > beg the question of who's the responsible party and what > organization is there for the coordination of these items? > btw - public AS numbers aren't free the costs are pretty > trivial but there is some cost associated with it. $500 setup + $30/year maintenance fee. Not overly expensive, but probably not needed if we could coordinate a private ASN with the upstream ISP's. Does it actually need to be coordinated though? Can't you have multiple ASN's in a confederation? I've never set up a private ASN though, so I wouldn't know. Jay From rochfordm at uwstout.edu Sat Jul 27 13:30:06 2002 From: rochfordm at uwstout.edu (Rochford, Michael J) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Relia-Wave 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card - Prism 2.5 Message-ID: <2BE9F31E45A1D611BE50006097C502AAF1FCAC@POST> Well I just got off the phone with demarctech.com because I ordered there new 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card. And I brought up TCWUG to him and he stopped and said you know we will give you guys a break if you order through us. He was a really nice guy gave me 10$ of a pigtail. He said he didn't know how much he would discount this stuff but all we need to do is call him and let him know. `mx ____________________________________________ Mike Rochford Univeristy of Wisconsin - Stout - Technical Asst. 213 South Hall Menomonie, WI 54751 ____________________________________________ E-mail Address: rochfordm@post.uwstout.edu -? School mikey@five-elements.com - Home mike_rochford@mikerochford.com - Home _________________________________________ Webpage: ?http://www.mikerochford.com - main ?http://www.4stout.org - fun ?http://noc.4stout.org - Home NOC page ____________________________________________ Messangers ?? AIM - MichaelJohnR , laptopmikey ??MSN - mikey@five-elements.com , ??????????? rochfordmike@hotmail ?? ICQ - 1831672 , 130620644 ?? IRC - `mx @ EFNET From sulrich at botwerks.org Sat Jul 27 14:50:54 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888821A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888821A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020727152722.B23054@botwerks.org> when last we saw our hero (Saturday, Jul 27, 2002), Austad, Jay was madly tapping out: > > this would require us to get an AS number (or make sure that we > > can coordinate with the upstreams to use an appropriate private AS > > number) as well, which isn't so much of a problem but it does beg > > the question of who's the responsible party and what organization > > is there for the coordination of these items? btw - public AS > > numbers aren't free the costs are pretty trivial but there is some > > cost associated with it. > > $500 setup + $30/year maintenance fee. Not overly expensive, but > probably not needed if we could coordinate a private ASN with the > upstream ISP's. Does it actually need to be coordinated though? > Can't you have multiple ASN's in a confederation? I've never set up > a private ASN though, so I wouldn't know. yes - private ASs are used in confederations. however, unless we have a lot of iBGP sessions going i don't understand the need for confederations and would recommend against confederations and looking at route reflectors. confederations are most useful in cases where you're looking to minimize the number of iBGP peers that you have and/or you're looking to split the AS into different administrative domains. i'm unclear as to what type of infrastructure you're looking at if you're looking at using confederations. if we were to use a private AS our upstreams would need to strip off our AS from the AS path if they were going to announce any address space that we were to get our hands on. it might be pedantic - but i think it might be a good idea to get a firm grasp on what folks want to accomplish and what the deployment plans are before going down the path of selecting a routing protocol. there seems to be a solution looking for a problem discussion taking place. - if there's a desire for an overlay network it might be a good idea to see if we can even create the wireless connectivity required to support it. an overlay exists independently of any other infrastructure and could likely be handled by simple APs running RIPv2. - if there's a desire to interconnect with the existing Inet in select locations then we need to engage in the discussion of protocol selection and an analysis of the topology that we want to create. so - where do people want to put APs for the wireless links and where can we interconnect? -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From sulrich at botwerks.org Sat Jul 27 15:10:54 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Relia-Wave 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card - Prism 2.5 In-Reply-To: <2BE9F31E45A1D611BE50006097C502AAF1FCAC@POST> References: <2BE9F31E45A1D611BE50006097C502AAF1FCAC@POST> Message-ID: <20020727155136.D23054@botwerks.org> fwiw - i've been hearing really good things about these folks on the other mailing lists (ptp, nocat). i don't have an application for their gear just yet but they definitely bear looking into. good news re: them giving out discounts! when last we saw our hero (Saturday, Jul 27, 2002), Rochford, Michael J was madly tapping out: > > Well I just got off the phone with demarctech.com because I ordered > there new 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card. And I brought up TCWUG to him > and he stopped and said you know we will give you guys a break if > you order through us. He was a really nice guy gave me 10$ of a > pigtail. He said he didn't know how much he would discount this > stuff but all we need to do is call him and let him know. > > `mx > > -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From bryan at edgar.sector14.net Sat Jul 27 16:39:19 2002 From: bryan at edgar.sector14.net (Bryan Halvorson) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Relia-Wave 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card - Prism 2.5 In-Reply-To: <20020727155136.D23054@botwerks.org> from "steve ulrich" at Jul 27, 2002 03:51:36 PM Message-ID: <200207272227.g6RMRRR10963@twenty.sector14.net> steve ulrich wrote: > > > fwiw - i've been hearing really good things about these folks on the > other mailing lists (ptp, nocat). i don't have an application for > their gear just yet but they definitely bear looking into. > > good news re: them giving out discounts! > > when last we saw our hero (Saturday, Jul 27, 2002), > Rochford, Michael J was madly tapping out: > > > > Well I just got off the phone with demarctech.com because I ordered > > there new 180mW PCMCIA Wireless Card. And I brought up TCWUG to him > > and he stopped and said you know we will give you guys a break if > > you order through us. He was a really nice guy gave me 10$ of a > > pigtail. He said he didn't know how much he would discount this > > stuff but all we need to do is call him and let him know. They've got that pigtail listed at $35 on their web site. Fab-corp has the same pigtail for $21. A month ago it was $18 at fab-corp. They do have some very good prices on their omni antennas but the ones I looked at don't show any down tilt to them. We've found that if you mount a high gain omni antenna that doesn't have any down tilt to the pattern much over 80 feet high the range actually goes down because most of the radio energy goes over the top of the users. -- Bryan Halvorson bryan@edgar.sector14.net From jima at beer.tclug.org Sat Jul 27 17:57:47 2002 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] El Reg: "Ethical hacker faces war driving charges" Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/26397.html Oh dear. Precedent. *deadpan* From poptix at techmonkeys.org Sat Jul 27 19:22:01 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: service offerings (Read This!) In-Reply-To: <20020727152722.B23054@botwerks.org>; from sulrich@botwerks.org on Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 03:27:22PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888821A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020727152722.B23054@botwerks.org> Message-ID: <20020727195842.R16733@techmonkeys.org> On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 03:27:22PM -0500, steve ulrich wrote: > it might be pedantic - but i think it might be a good idea to get a > firm grasp on what folks want to accomplish and what the deployment > plans are before going down the path of selecting a routing protocol. > there seems to be a solution looking for a problem discussion taking > place. > > - if there's a desire for an overlay network it might be a good idea > to see if we can even create the wireless connectivity required to > support it. an overlay exists independently of any other > infrastructure and could likely be handled by simple APs running > RIPv2. > > - if there's a desire to interconnect with the existing Inet in > select locations then we need to engage in the discussion of protocol > selection and an analysis of the topology that we want to create. > > so - where do people want to put APs for the wireless links and where > can we interconnect? > > -- > steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org > PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC I don't think it matters what anyone wants. Let's examine the 2 topics being discussed: 1) Overlay network 2) Hotspots What does #1 provide? a) A twin cities-wide network where content can be shared (such as the ftp mirrors at real-time). b) internet access via various access points that choose to have a default gateway and a route to the 'net c) hotspots that are not in-range of the rest of the wireless network, but are connected to it via tunnels over the internet (ie: GRE) What does #2 provide? a) internet access via various access points that choose to have a default gateway, and a route to the 'net b) connectivity to other hotspots via tunnels over the internet (ie: GRE) Now, what have people expressed a wish for (owner viewpoint): 1) reimbursement for cost of equipment (non profit) 2) profit (make money, isp-style) 3) connectivity to other nodes What do users want: 1) connectivity 2) alternative to slow downloads over the 'net that are from sites that are local (ie: real-time's ftp mirror) Conflicts: The /only/ conflict I see is where it comes to people profiting from their access points, I can see where people would have an issue in the following scenario: User connects to access point #1 Access point #1 connects to User gets on the net via gateway Z, which is charging User for bandwidth. access point #1 feels used because he's not making any money off it. Personally, I do not feel that there's any profit to be made from a network like this, I've worked for an ISP that tried, they are now bankrupt. I do believe it's completely possible to build the network, keep it stable, and very usable. I see the network as an overlay network regardless of what anyone calls it (car, truck, motorcycle.. they're all still an automobile) different access points will decide, on their own, weither or not they're going to allow internet access from their access point. There's no need to discuss it, because it's not a group decision. The overlay vs. hotspot question is moot, access points that wish to connect to each other will, access points that either cannot, or will not, connect to the rest, won't. Any questions, or something I missed? What I Think We Need To Figure Out: Mobile IP Global Routing Protocol (BGP?) Global Network Authentication (ie, nocatauth or something custom) -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From austad at marketwatch.com Sun Jul 28 18:35:18 2002 From: austad at marketwatch.com (Austad, Jay) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) Message-ID: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572F1@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Like I said, I've never set up a network with a private AS before, the only ones I've set up had their own public AS number. So I'm unsure as to how confederations and such fit into this, but from the sound of it, it seems like a confederation is simply like an OSPF area. In any case, I think we are jumping ahead of ourselves by discussing BGP and all that. We don't even have a base network to play around with yet, the conversation just went the way it did for who knows what reason. My problem is, I live in brooklyn park, and I have lots of tall trees, so to set up a link with anyone else I'm going to have to get a nice tall mast and hope the city doesn't come over and break my knees for violating some ordinance. I have a friend in North Minneapolis though that would likely be willing to let me put up an antenna at his place, and he works for a local ISP also, so it's possible that they might be interested in putting an antenna on their roof (near Surdyk's). I'd like to put one on the roof of where I work, but out building people barely let us put our satellite feeds up there. If anyone is planning on doing this, are you looking at 802.11b, a, or that motorola canopy stuff? 802.11b is 1/5 the speed of 802.11a, and 802.11a isn't too much more expensive. Wouldn't it make sense to use a faster technology? Jay > -----Original Message----- > From: steve ulrich [mailto:sulrich@botwerks.org] > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:27 PM > To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: Re: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) > > > when last we saw our hero (Saturday, Jul 27, 2002), > Austad, Jay was madly tapping out: > > > this would require us to get an AS number (or make sure that we > > > can coordinate with the upstreams to use an appropriate private AS > > > number) as well, which isn't so much of a problem but it does beg > > > the question of who's the responsible party and what organization > > > is there for the coordination of these items? btw - public AS > > > numbers aren't free the costs are pretty trivial but there is some > > > cost associated with it. > > > > $500 setup + $30/year maintenance fee. Not overly expensive, but > > probably not needed if we could coordinate a private ASN with the > > upstream ISP's. Does it actually need to be coordinated though? > > Can't you have multiple ASN's in a confederation? I've never set up > > a private ASN though, so I wouldn't know. > > yes - private ASs are used in confederations. however, unless we have > a lot of iBGP sessions going i don't understand the need for > confederations and would recommend against confederations and looking > at route reflectors. confederations are most useful in cases where > you're looking to minimize the number of iBGP peers that you have > and/or you're looking to split the AS into different administrative > domains. > > i'm unclear as to what type of infrastructure you're looking at if > you're looking at using confederations. if we were to use a private > AS our upstreams would need to strip off our AS from the AS path if > they were going to announce any address space that we were to get our > hands on. > > it might be pedantic - but i think it might be a good idea to get a > firm grasp on what folks want to accomplish and what the deployment > plans are before going down the path of selecting a routing protocol. > there seems to be a solution looking for a problem discussion taking > place. > > - if there's a desire for an overlay network it might be a good idea > to see if we can even create the wireless connectivity required to > support it. an overlay exists independently of any other > infrastructure and could likely be handled by simple APs running > RIPv2. > > - if there's a desire to interconnect with the existing Inet in > select locations then we need to engage in the discussion of protocol > selection and an analysis of the topology that we want to create. > > so - where do people want to put APs for the wireless links and where > can we interconnect? > > > > > > -- > steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org > PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - > Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.tcwug.org > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From poptix at techmonkeys.org Sun Jul 28 20:54:01 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572F1@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:06:01PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572F1@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020728213726.A5338@techmonkeys.org> On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:06:01PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > If anyone is planning on doing this, are you looking at 802.11b, a, or that > motorola canopy stuff? 802.11b is 1/5 the speed of 802.11a, and 802.11a > isn't too much more expensive. Wouldn't it make sense to use a faster > technology? I plan on using 802.11a and 802.11b, they aren't mutually exclusive. > > Jay > -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 29 10:11:04 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572F1@mspexch2.office.mktw.net>; from austad@marketwatch.com on Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:06:01PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0072572F1@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> Message-ID: <20020729104907.B5978@real-time.com> > In any case, I think we are jumping ahead of ourselves by discussing BGP and > all that. you're right. > We don't even have a base network to play around with yet, the > conversation just went the way it did for who knows what reason. partly because some of us consider routing across/from/to a wireless network to be an Interesting Problem. :) (that's most of the reason I'm with TCWUG, actually). > If anyone is planning on doing this, are you looking at 802.11b, a, or that > motorola canopy stuff? 802.11b is 1/5 the speed of 802.11a, and 802.11a > isn't too much more expensive. Wouldn't it make sense to use a faster > technology? I thought that 802.11a was somewhat more limited in range. Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 29 10:11:18 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG>; from drechsau@geeks.org on Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:22:13PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020729105235.C5978@real-time.com> > > first let's make it work, then let's make it work well. :) > > Hackery should not be settled for. > > If you have time to do it, you have time to do it right. you don't necessarily have the money, tho. :) cisco 2500/2600 == $hundreds P75+zebra == $dig_under_your_couch_cushions Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 29 10:57:27 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Re: service offerings (Read This!) In-Reply-To: <20020727195842.R16733@techmonkeys.org>; from poptix@techmonkeys.org on Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 07:58:42PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA00888821A@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020727152722.B23054@botwerks.org> <20020727195842.R16733@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <20020729114101.D5978@real-time.com> > I do believe it's completely possible to build the network, keep it stable, > and very usable. I see the network as an overlay network regardless of what > anyone calls it (car, truck, motorcycle.. they're all still an automobile) > different access points will decide, on their own, weither or not they're > going to allow internet access from their access point. There's no need > to discuss it, because it's not a group decision. The overlay vs. hotspot > question is moot, access points that wish to connect to each other will, > access points that either cannot, or will not, connect to the rest, won't. I heartily agree with this; this is what I always expected will happen anyway... people/nodes will decide for themselves how much connectivity they will give/recieve (wired and wireless); and we're likely to just fall into a loose 'federation' of nodes, if anything. making anything more organized happen, will require exponentially more effort; and it remains to be seen if anyone has the drive/knowlege/charisma to make it work. :) Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From chrise at pobox.com Mon Jul 29 13:00:16 2002 From: chrise at pobox.com (Chris Elmquist) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] WiFi hacker honeypot Message-ID: <20020729132340.E3224@n0jcf.net> This was on Slashdot today... http://online.securityfocus.com/news/552 Wi Fi Honeypots a New Hacker Trap War drivers beware, the next wireless network you tap might be part of an elaborate sting. By Kevin Poulsen, Jul 29 2002 1:00AM Hackers searching for wireless access points in the nation's capital may soon war drive right into a trap. Last month researchers at the government contractor Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) launched what might be the first organized wireless honeypot, designed to tempt unwary Wi Fi hackers and bandwidth borrowers and gather data on their techniques and tools of choice. [...] -- Chris Elmquist mailto:chrise@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~chrise From drechsau at geeks.org Mon Jul 29 22:14:00 2002 From: drechsau at geeks.org (Mike Horwath) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020729105235.C5978@real-time.com> References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG> <20020729105235.C5978@real-time.com> Message-ID: <20020730035206.GA4318@Geeks.ORG> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:52:35AM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: > > > first let's make it work, then let's make it work well. :) > > > > Hackery should not be settled for. > > > > If you have time to do it, you have time to do it right. > > you don't necessarily have the money, tho. :) I don't? Funny that you should know my finances better than I do... > cisco 2500/2600 == $hundreds > P75+zebra == $dig_under_your_couch_cushions okay, and how do you plug in the T1 in that P75? -- Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. From poptix at techmonkeys.org Mon Jul 29 22:37:08 2002 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020730035206.GA4318@Geeks.ORG>; from drechsau@geeks.org on Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:52:06PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG> <20020729105235.C5978@real-time.com> <20020730035206.GA4318@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020729231747.F5338@techmonkeys.org> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:52:06PM -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: > > cisco 2500/2600 == $hundreds > > P75+zebra == $dig_under_your_couch_cushions > > okay, and how do you plug in the T1 in that P75? > With a $250-$350 PCI WAN card of course! But then, you could find a used router for that much, I think a $COMPUTER will be fine for thing such as access points, but border routers should actually be.. routers. $COMPUTER = Sun/PC running $STABLE_OS_OF_CHOICE Unless, of course, you have a better way. > -- > Mike Horwath IRC: Drechsau drechsau@Geeks.ORG > Home: 763-540-6815 1901 Sumter Ave N, Golden Valley, MN 55427 > Opinions stated in this message, or any message posted by myself > through my Geeks.ORG address, are mine and mine alone, period. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chrome at real-time.com Mon Jul 29 22:37:26 2002 From: chrome at real-time.com (Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:22 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020730035206.GA4318@Geeks.ORG>; from drechsau@geeks.org on Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:52:06PM -0500 References: <54180709DD3FE145917BB165AFE7EFA0088881FE@mspexch2.office.mktw.net> <20020726111215.B23444@real-time.com> <20020727032213.GE11144@Geeks.ORG> <20020729105235.C5978@real-time.com> <20020730035206.GA4318@Geeks.ORG> Message-ID: <20020729232649.J23444@real-time.com> > > > If you have time to do it, you have time to do it right. > > > > you don't necessarily have the money, tho. :) > > I don't? > > Funny that you should know my finances better than I do... let me rephrase that. :) Joe Broke wireless volunteer might not have the money to invest in a cisco router. :) (I meant "you" in the general sense of "whoever wants to do this"). > > cisco 2500/2600 == $hundreds > > P75+zebra == $dig_under_your_couch_cushions > > okay, and how do you plug in the T1 in that P75? I wasn't thinking of plugging a T1 into it. I'm still operating under the assumption that if anything, this'll turn out to be a loose federation of generous souls with DSL or cable lines out to the Internet. if you want to sink the money into a T1 (which to me means making at least a small-scale commercial venture of it), it's probably reasonable to sink the money into a purpose-built commercial router which can do BGP/OSPF/whatever. (or you could be adventurous and sink the money into a Sangoma WAN card and let other people learn from your experience for better or for worse). Carl Soderstrom. -- Systems Administrator Real-Time Enterprises www.real-time.com From bneigebauer at attbi.com Tue Jul 30 00:17:20 2002 From: bneigebauer at attbi.com (BN) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:23 2005 Subject: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) In-Reply-To: <20020728213726.A5338@techmonkeys.org> Message-ID: <006201c23706$1755ddf0$6462a8c0@slick> DLINK has a combo 802.11a and 802.llb access point. It looks pretty sweet. I checked the FCC ID and it was built by Global Sun Technology on the new TI chipset. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-admin@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Matthew S. Hallacy Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:37 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: service offerings (was: Re: [TCWUG] Richochet boxes?) On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 07:06:01PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote: > If anyone is planning on doing this, are you looking at 802.11b, a, or that > motorola canopy stuff? 802.11b is 1/5 the speed of 802.11a, and 802.11a > isn't too much more expensive. Wouldn't it make sense to use a faster > technology? I plan on using 802.11a and 802.11b, they aren't mutually exclusive. > > Jay > -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.tcwug.org tcwug-list@tcwug.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From sulrich at botwerks.org Tue Jul 30 10:20:05 2002 From: sulrich at botwerks.org (steve ulrich) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:23 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] fwd: [nycwireless] Investor's Business Daily article Message-ID: <20020730160748.GA13662@botwerks.org> i saw this article in the paper last week, it appears to have made its way onto the nycwireless mailing list. more on the ongoing saga re: putting the smack down on subs last week. ----- Forwarded message from Anthony Townsend ----- From: "Anthony Townsend" To: "NYCwireless List" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Subject: [nycwireless] Investor's Business Daily - "Broadband Providers Begin To Crack Down On Subscribers Who Share Connections" Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:03:14 -0400 > Broadband Providers Begin To Crack Down On Subscribers Who Share > Connections. Some Subscribers Will Switch. Time Warner Cable and > AT&T Broadband warning against broadband sharing > > By MIKE ANGELL Investor's Business Daily, Thursday, July 25, 2002 > > What started as a hobby among Web enthusiasts now is getting harsh > looks from Internet service providers. Wireless networking > technology, sometimes called WiFi or 802.11b, was designed to make a > home DSL or cable modem connection available to anybody inside the > subscriber's house. But wireless enthusiasts are extending that > reach to include friends and neighbors who don't pay for the > connection. That's drawing the ire of broadband providers, who are > beginning to crack down on such sharing. But in doing so, ISPs risk > losing the tech-savvy customers who buy and recommend such services. > "I recommend broadband service providers to my grandparents, to my > friends, to others," said Adam Shand, founder of the Portland, > Ore.-based group Personal Telco Project. "I'm going to recommend > ISPs that work with enthusiasts, not those that go after them." > Shand uses an ISP that doesn't restrict sharing. But that's not the > policy at Time Warner Cable and AT&T Broadband. This month, Time > Warner Cable sent letters to 10 users in New York giving them three > days to stop sharing their high-speed cable modem connections with > other people. If they didn't comply, Time Warner said, it would cut > their service. Time Warner didn't say whether the users had > complied. "When you contract for high-speed access, it's for your > use in your household and not to share with neighbors," said Time > Warner spokeswoman Suzanne Giuliani. AT&T Broadband also plans to > contact users who are sharing connections. AT&T Broadband didn't say > how many such users it had identified. In both cases, subscribers to > high-speed cable modem Internet access are letting nonsubscribers > share connections through WiFi technology. Sharing, or stealing, the > service is as simple as setting up an antenna on the roof of your > house, Shand says. Up to 50 people can use one connection. The > signal can go as far as 20 miles. Time Warner found out about the > usage through Web postings on a site run by a group called > NYCWireless that offers free, mobile Internet access through WiFi. > > Giuliani says the company learned about the theft because of the > postings. "It's not like we have investigative teams roaming the > streets," Giuliani said. NYCWireless spokesman Anthony Townsend > says the group doesn't advocate breaking subscriber agreements. > Rather, members should use business Internet connections rather than > home Internet connections. Business connections usually don't > restrict the number of users. A business DSL connection can cost $ > 100 a month vs. $ 45 to $ 60 for home DSL or cable modem service. > Most NYCWireless members use smaller ISPs that don't restrict the > number of users on one connection. Townsend says Time Warner's > actions don't build good relations in the tech community. "They are > developing a very nasty relationship with people who were the first > to get broadband," Townsend said. AT&T Broadband looks for people > who post messages on online bulletin boards about the broadband > theft. They're double-checked by AT&T technicians scanning the area > around a subscriber's home for WiFi signals. Spokeswoman Sara Eder > says AT&T may begin routine checks for broadband sharing. Just as > AT&T checks neighborhoods for cable thieves, it may start random > checks for WiFi broadband sharing. "We're watching this carefully," > Eder said. "In some cases, we have trolled communities" for WiFi > signals. Eder says such broadband theft is a small portion of > bandwidth usage. NYCWireless says it has 70 New York hot spots where > people can log onto the Internet wirelessly. And Shand's Personal > Telco Project has about 50 hot spots around Portland. Giuliani says sharing > a broadband connection leaves the original subscriber vulnerable. > Anyone can find passwords, access personal accounts or use the > connection illicitly without fear of being caught. > > Copyright 2002 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. Investor's Business > Daily -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- steve ulrich sulrich@botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC From dave at davedash.com Tue Jul 30 10:28:47 2002 From: dave at davedash.com (dave@davedash.com) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:23 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bridging two BEFW11S4s? Message-ID: Hi, I have two BEFW11S4s (I needed the wired capabilities as well) is it possible to bridge the two together? I haven't set both of them up yet (I just got the 2nd one today) so I didn't fiddle with it at all. Thanks -dd From andyw at pobox.com Tue Jul 30 13:14:57 2002 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Tue Jan 18 11:36:23 2005 Subject: [TCWUG] Bridging two BEFW11S4s? In-Reply-To: ; from dave@davedash.com on Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 08:27:31AM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20020730135203.F16121@florence.linkmargin.com> dave@davedash.com wrote: > I have two BEFW11S4s (I needed the wired capabilities as well) is it > possible to bridge the two together? Not wirelessly, no. They do not support point-to-point mode on the wireless interface. Can you describe the problem you're trying to solve ? -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634