|
Grex > Coop12 > #14: Internet Connectivity Revisited |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 146 of 176:
| 
Aug 22 22:15 UTC 2001 |
``Port 80'' in this context refers to TCP port number 80, which is
the well-known port for the HTTP protocol, which is the protocol that
web servers typically use to move data around.
So, in other words, port 80 is what you talk to a web server on. It's
significance, other than that, is that that's the port that Microsoft's
IIS web server `listens' on. IIS has all sorts of funky security holes
in it, most recently the one used to propogate the `code red' worm
which has been plaguing the Internet recently.
|
keesan
|
|
response 147 of 176:
|
Aug 22 22:21 UTC 2001 |
The Ann Arbor public library uses some other port which is why you have to
go an indirect route to renew books if not a paying grexer.
|
scott
|
|
response 148 of 176:
|
Aug 22 22:34 UTC 2001 |
The proxy route we're implementing should allow all users to get to the most
common non-standard HTTP ports (8080 is one of them).
|
jared
|
|
response 149 of 176:
|
Aug 23 04:28 UTC 2001 |
Sorry for being out of things, but what's the current deal here?
|
janc
|
|
response 150 of 176:
|
Aug 23 20:59 UTC 2001 |
Not much. We still have Covad DSL through whatever Voyager is called now.
Nothing has changed. But people are worried that Covad will vanish, and our
net connectivity will vanish with it. Nobody has come up with any viable
suggestion of what we should or could do about it.
|
russ
|
|
response 151 of 176:
|
Aug 24 23:17 UTC 2001 |
Has anyone investigated the possibilities of 802.11 links
around Ann Arbor?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 152 of 176:
|
Aug 25 00:50 UTC 2001 |
A friend of mine drives around town now and again looking for open wireless
networks. Does that count?
|
gull
|
|
response 153 of 176:
|
Aug 25 16:44 UTC 2001 |
Supposedly they're pretty easy to hax0r. ;>
|
russ
|
|
response 154 of 176:
|
Aug 25 22:55 UTC 2001 |
I was thinking of something more like an encrypted tunnel
over 802.11 between the Pumpkin and a local ISP. As the
connectivity problem is much more associated with the "last
mile" wiring than any lack of bandwidth, that might be
something to look at.
|
russ
|
|
response 155 of 176:
|
Aug 26 13:09 UTC 2001 |
Re #153: WEP is a joke, but I doubt that an encrypted tunnel
is going to be much less secure over 802.11 than it is over
the broader Internet.
A further advantage of 802.11 is that it might allow for
wireless access to Grex from nearby users. I'd recommend
making this access via ssh only (no telnet). That's one way
to save on phone lines.
The core issue is if there are any remaining local ISPs which
would be willing to co-locate enough 802.11 hardware to get
a signal through to the pumpkin. Repeaters could extend this
range quite a bit, but depending on volunteer-operated
repeaters for Grex's internet connection isn't a good strategy.
Might the landlord allow installation of an antenna on the roof?
|
gull
|
|
response 156 of 176:
|
Aug 26 18:42 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, an encrypted tunnel would solve the security problems.
|
mdw
|
|
response 157 of 176:
|
Aug 26 20:55 UTC 2001 |
When grex moved into the pumpkin, the landlord was very receptive to the
idea of an antenna on the roof. Unfortunately, he was on a oxygen tank
and has since died. ISPs aren't generally receptive to "weird" hookups
- they like to see hardware and software they know and understand. A
further option would be pricing - ISPs charge mainly for network
bandwidth - which could make this quite pricey. 802.11 is apparently
pretty particular about having a good path and range depends greatly on
the quality of that path. We'd probably have to have roof access not
only wherever grex lives, but also wherever the ISP is, & something
close to line of sight inbetween. Ironically, our best option might be
via merit & a friendly merit affiliate, but probably only if we could
move in directly across the street.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 158 of 176:
|
Aug 27 00:34 UTC 2001 |
Merit isn't doing wireless these days. (I asked.) They've experimented with
it in the past, but it hasn't panned out.
|
mdw
|
|
response 159 of 176:
|
Aug 28 03:05 UTC 2001 |
What we'd probably do with the hypothetical friendly merit affiliate
would be to locate our own router (pc of some flavor) with
802.11/802.11B card somewhere like an upper-story outside wall broom
closet, and negotiate with merit about subnets and the like. M-net had
a somewhat similar arrangement with merit in the distant past, and HVCN
has a similar arrangement today, so this is in theory doable.
Technically, when we were in the dungeon, and ITD was in Argus, the
physical arrangement was close to what we would have needed. We might
have had to do something to get the antenna out of the basement of the
house, plus negotiate with the sty to locate a PC in the right part of
Argus.
|
jared
|
|
response 160 of 176:
|
Oct 7 05:39 UTC 2001 |
Grex is too far away for me to provide 802.11b type wireless.
doing wep or similar things is doable, and one could do some ipsec
encoding in addition to the wep at the router level at each end of
the link to provide sufficent security to make such a link secure.
some rural isps (datawise.net for example) use wireless to interconnect
nodes that are distant. there are also people who make interesting wireless
devices (adaptivebroadband[.com]) for one. i talked to them a few years
ago at an interview and their technology was quite interesting and
sprint broadband uses them. last i checked we were not in an area
that had access to such service. the ameritech dsl stuff would be an
intersting choice as some people (ic.net for example) resell it. i
also talked to comcast folks about cable modem stuff (static ip, etc..)
and they can provide service that would be usable to grex but
at a much higher cost than dsl.
if grex were to get in a bind for connectivity some staff person
could call me and i can attempt to arrange some sort of
backup connection (isdn, static ip dialup, etc..) in short
order.
|
gull
|
|
response 161 of 176:
|
Oct 7 19:58 UTC 2001 |
Re #160: We use ic.net at work and I can't recommend them. Their
outgoing path is through Sprintnet, which is infamous for
unreliability. Generally we have at least one outage or packet loss
problem a week, and connection speeds to non-ic.net sites are generally
very poor. They also have a tendancy to lose DNS servers, but that's
easier to work around, of course.
|
mdw
|
|
response 162 of 176:
|
Oct 8 00:30 UTC 2001 |
Grex used to be connected via ic.net. They've got some local peering;
at least, when I do a tracroute from work, they don't go via sprint for
any hop, and don't appear to exit the state of michigan. Losing DNS
servers won't be an issue for grex (well, except for the reverse arpa
thing).
|
i
|
|
response 163 of 176:
|
Oct 8 02:45 UTC 2001 |
We've got ic.net at work, too, both ISDN & "T1". Notable things:
They switched their primary connection from (awesomely bad) Verio to
FNSI late this spring. Definite large improvement.
Their secondary connection seems to be with Sprint, it never seemed
to have problems beyond those implicit in "we're going through secondary
because Verio's screwed up again".
Their dial-up & ISDN connections are many hops further from the world
than the high speed connections (i think the situation is equipment co-lo
at a big Ameritech node & connections to their main network (in their A^2
HQ) from there); the high speed stuff is clearly more reliable for this.
|
jared
|
|
response 164 of 176:
|
Oct 10 02:50 UTC 2001 |
One other thing. http://www.sprintbroadband.com/ people are good for
connectivity.
Aside: provider bashing, fnsi, ic.net, sprint, verio, cw, etc..
is popular for most of you people here who don't understand how
the internet works. please tread lightly in areas where you are
not an expert. All providers large and small have had issues over
the years due to hardware and software instability by the vendors
(cisco, juniper, and yes, even when ibm had routers in the core
of the internet). also, when people like (voyager, verio,
bbnplanet/genuity, c&w and others) have done network integrations
to their 'corporate' world/way of networking things never go
as smooth as initally expected. (Anyone who has worked for any
sort of company that was acquired/purchased/sold can obviously
vouch for this, it can be confusing and there are a lot of problems
that can happen. company re-orgs can be just as confusing and
problematic). A lot of providers have gotten bad names for various reasons
in the past, but one should keep in perspective that these problems
do not linger for years and tend to crop up due to administrative
or engineering snafus.
While we should keep in mind past performances of providers in insuring
grex has a good reliable internet connection we should also insure that
the data we are working with is current and understand that providers
may ecounter growing pains or problems continuing to operate in this
environment. (hence my starting of this thread with concerns about
rythms, covad, northpoint, etc.. and grex being stuck without any
internet connectivity).
ISDN/Dialup has gone wholeseale as well as DSL. I'm not sure
what the right connection is for Grex as a small business
and a 501(c)3 org. T1 is too expensive, dialup too slow and
we need to keep in mind the static-ip requirement. (grex only needs
one, the terminal-server/lan can have a secondary/vif netblock out
of rfc1918 space if necessary). The solution is not obvious to me.
|
mdw
|
|
response 165 of 176:
|
Oct 10 10:31 UTC 2001 |
In the long run, we will almost certainly be doing things where more
than one IP address is useful.
|
gull
|
|
response 166 of 176:
|
Oct 10 15:03 UTC 2001 |
Re #164: Yes, I know, and I realize that most of ic.net's problems are
with their upstream provider, which they only have a certain amount of
control over. However, I consider peering with an unreliable upstream
provider to be a good reason *not* to work with an ISP. For a while,
earlier this year, we were experiencing outages every couple of weeks
that went on for hours, where both their primary and secondary
connections were down. I don't think this is particuarly good for a
company that purports to provide business-class T1 service. It should
be *more* reliable than my $50 ADSL connection at home, not less. (It
certainly costs a lot more.) Given the non-critical nature of Grex I
suppose it'd be acceptable, though.
Being an Internet provider is tough. It's like being a phone company or
a power company. There's little room to really make people happy,
since they expect 100% reliability as a matter of course. (Amusingly
enough, at home both my Internet service and my phone service are more
reliable than my electrical power.)
|
jared
|
|
response 167 of 176:
|
Oct 10 21:17 UTC 2001 |
re #165
most providers that can assign one can easily add more.
re #166
as much as i sometimes dislike the evil "big companies", they are making
strides in the right directions. in these market conditions
they need to otherwise they won't survive. i've seen a significant number
of providers and their suppliers move to spend more time insuring customers
are happy than signing up new people.
times are always changing. i just want to insure that grex does not get
stuck paying money to people that are providing poor/improper service
for what grex needs. (ie: not a 5 year long-term contract).
i believe the current contract requires grex to eject on a 12-month
marker from the contract inception. ideally (imho) any contract that
requires a minimum time to be in will allow one to remove from
the contract anytime after that minimum timer is met.
|
gull
|
|
response 168 of 176:
|
Oct 11 15:12 UTC 2001 |
Re #167: Yup. Generally with Internet providers bigger is better these
days, because the small ones are either taking on more accounts than
they can handle or going out of business. (That's a big reason I went
with Ameritech for my DSL connection at home.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 169 of 176:
|
Oct 11 16:09 UTC 2001 |
Re #167: Jared - I didn't understand your last paragraph. Could you
rephrase?
|
blaise
|
|
response 170 of 176:
|
Oct 11 20:10 UTC 2001 |
Re: 169. I think that what Jared was trying to say was that after the initial
long term contract it should be possible to go to a month-to-month contract.
(As opposed to places that only renew in long terms.) It sounds reasonable
to me to require a lengthy initial term (to recoup installation costs) but
not to require long-term commitments every renewal.
|