On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 5:04 PM Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> What I've found missing were references to packet loss impact on
> performance. It seems to assume cable/fiber environments with little
> to no packet loss, while Wi-Fi and 3G/4G/5G are not like that.
Wireless environments tend to do L2 retrans
What I've found missing were references to packet loss impact on
performance. It seems to assume cable/fiber environments with little
to no packet loss, while Wi-Fi and 3G/4G/5G are not like that.
Rubens
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 7:23 AM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Over here:
>
> https://docs.google.com
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 6:21 PM Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
>
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
> >
> > Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC's
> > NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the
> >
On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 2:30 AM Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> On 12/1/23 5:27 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > It would be better to keep the government out of it altogether, but that
> > has little chance of happening.
> >
>
> I agree. But I do have a question: is there a Best Practices RFC for
> setti
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 8:35 PM wrote:
> Or has no engineer capable of configuring it, or support staff trained to
> handle the issues that will come up.
Like I said: lazy. Training to deploy and support a minimalist 6rd
deployment where customers who want it can optionally use it is not a
challe
On 12/1/23 5:27 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It would be better to keep the government out of it altogether, but that has
little chance of happening.
I agree. But I do have a question: is there a Best Practices RFC for
setting buffer sizes in the existing corpus? The Internet community has
bee
Or has no engineer capable of configuring it, or support staff trained to
handle the issues that will come up.
There are many reasons why providers don’t support v6.
> On Dec 1, 2023, at 11:20 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:45 PM Shane Ronan wrote:
>> Unfortunately fr
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:45 PM Shane Ronan wrote:
> Unfortunately from my experience it's usually because the small local
> ISPs don't have the resources to understand IPv6, and may be using
> equipment generations old that may not support IPv6. It's the large
> ISPs that don't want to do it becau
t"
Cc: "NANOG" , "NZNOG" ,
""
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 6:34:49 PM
Subject: Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband
speeds
Trying to put technical requirements like this into law and public policy is an
extremely
Again, these rules typically only relevant when you are taking government funding or the government is looking to allocate future funding. Providers who don’t take government funding are welcome to run their networks as they choose.ShaneOn Dec 1, 2023, at 7:35 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:Trying to put
Trying to put technical requirements like this into law and public policy
is an extremely terrible idea. This letter should never be sent.
The regulatory agencies today don't have the manpower or expertise to
adequately enforce the more generic broadband deployment rules. What
fantasy world exists
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
>
> Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC's
> NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the
> broadband speeds beyond 100/20 Mbit.
The era of “buffer bloat
On 12/1/23 16:45, Shane Ronan wrote:
Unfortunately from my experience it's usually because the small local
ISPs don't have the resources to understand IPv6, and may be using
equipment generations old that may not support IPv6. It's the large ISPs
that don't want to do it because it would increa
Unfortunately from my experience it's usually because the small local ISPs
don't have the resources to understand IPv6, and may be using equipment
generations old that may not support IPv6. It's the large ISPs that don't
want to do it because it would increase their operational costs and require
up
Yea I’d like to see mandated IPv6 if ISPs want government money, around here an
IPv4 only ISP won a government contract a while back for res fiber deployment
and the last I heard from an acquaintance I spoke to over there they are
planning to stuff the entire city behind a /24 with no upcoming p
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:55 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
>
> Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in flux...
Hi Dave,
You start off with a decent thesis - beyond 100mbps there really isn't
an
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:55 PM Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> bufferbloat is rarely fatal
This task will put me in my grave, sooner rather than later!
>
>
> LOL! I know one person taht may disagree with that :)
>
> -mel
>
> On Dec 1, 2023, at 9:41 AM, Tom Mitchell wrote:
>
>
> Not sure we need the FC
ell ; NANOG ;
> NZNOG ; aus...@lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: [nznog] Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for
> faster broadband speeds
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Shane Ronan
> wrote:
> >
> > If you want money from the government to subsidize your n
As one beholden to USAC/FCC I have to agree with Shane...
michael brooks
Sr. Network Engineer
Adams 12 Five Star Schools
michael.bro...@adams12.org
"flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss"
On Fri, Dec 1
bufferbloat is rarely fatal
LOL! I know one person taht may disagree with that :)
-mel
On Dec 1, 2023, at 9:41 AM, Tom Mitchell wrote:
Not sure we need the FCC telling us how to build products or run networks.
Seat belts are life-or-death, but bufferbloat is rarely fatal ;-) Let it be a
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Mitchell"
To: "Dave Taht"
Cc: "NANOG" , "NZNOG" ,
""
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 11:38:10 AM
Subject: Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband
speeds
Not sure we ne
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:46 PM Shane Ronan wrote:
>
> If you want money from the government to subsidize your network, you'll
> follow their rules...
It is the misguided focus on too many too simple things from the
regulator and Congress, without even understanding what a packet is,
and enormou
If you want money from the government to subsidize your network, you'll
follow their rules...
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:39 PM Tom Mitchell
wrote:
> Not sure we need the FCC telling us how to build products or run
> networks. Seat belts are life-or-death, but bufferbloat is rarely fatal
> ;-) L
Not sure we need the FCC telling us how to build products or run networks.
Seat belts are life-or-death, but bufferbloat is rarely fatal ;-) Let it
be a point of differentiation.
-- Tom
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:56 PM Dave Taht wrote:
> Over here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AD
Over here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC's
NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the
broadband speeds beyond 100/20 Mbit.
"Calls for further bandwidt
25 matches
Mail list logo
