Searching \ for 'Re[2]: [OT]: ISP-based whitelisting service?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=isp+based+whitelisting
Search entire site for: '[OT]: ISP-based whitelisting service?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Re[2]: [OT]: ISP-based whitelisting service?'
2006\06\26@115614 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Shawn,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 10:16:40 AM, you wrote:

> On Monday 26 June 2006 14:12, Patrick Murphy wrote:
>> One (remote?) possibility would be to look into becoming our own ISP,
>> or a "virtual" ISP, but I know little about it.

> i just googled for "Hutterite".. never heard of it before this..

I'm not suprised - our "religious cousins," the Amish, are much more
well known. We differ from them in that we allow modern technology,
and have a more communal lifestyle and we are few in number in
comparison to the Amish.

> yes, you could set up your own community gateway and set up your own filtering
> rules on the gateway.. however, this would require some knowledge in
> networking and firewall configuration..

Are you saying we could have Internet access through an ISP and the
ISP would route all traffic through our gateway? If so, are there
ISP's willing to work with us to do that? Another question for the
list is whether we should do it ourselves, or hire someone to help us.

> it's relatively inexpensive as you can just use any old computer as a
> gateway.. install a special firewall linux distribution like
> http://www.smoothwall.org/.. configure it to block everything except approved
> sites..

> then, you'd just need to make sure that all community traffic flows through
> this gateway..

Is this easy to accomplish? I'm googling [Internet "community
gateway"] and have a lot of hits; the term appears to be used in
several contexts.

> cheers..

> with metta,
> shawn tan.

Thanks for your help!

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@120024 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Alan,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 10:35:49 AM, you wrote:

>>it's relatively inexpensive as you can just use any old computer
>>as a gateway.. install a special firewall linux distribution like

> That was my thought as well. With a bit of web programming on it they could
> even update the white and black lists themselves, and have a means of
> sending updates around the other similar machines at the other communities,
> possibly by email or some form of auto-update.

This sounds good - but I'd have some learning to do. I still don't
have the big picture yet - how do I get the colonies to access that
gateway - and no other? I'll do some more searching.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@121926 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 11:05:29 AM, you wrote:
<snip!>
> Good idea. Are the computers in each community in a central location
> or spread around in individual homes?

> If they are spread out is the community physically small enough that
> maybe a satellite could connect to the gateway described above and
> then the community could be networked with WiFi routers?

> Tim

Spread out in individual homes, barns and shops. Some colonies would,
however, only use one or two computers to access the Internet, at
least at first.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@150727 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Shawn,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 10:16:40 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Tim explained this setup to me offlist - thanks Tim! It does eliminate
the need for a SonicWall or similar device - but it may be hard to
find someone at each colony capable of setting it up. I'll look into
it as well.

I'm still, perhaps unrealistically, still hoping for an ISP-based
solution. Since we are multi-family farms, we have young boys; some of
them know far more about the computer than their parents, and because
of them, the parents would prefer to have the Internet filtered before
it arrives on the place.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@160303 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Gerhard,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 11:51:18 AM, you wrote:
<snip!>

{Quote hidden}

The colonies are located in farming areas of Manitoba, and in farming
areas of the Mid-Western US. Each colony may have a dairy, a hog barn,
turkey and/or chicken barns and other farm buildings; some may be as
far as a mile apart (and downwind, if possible :-)). Most colonies do
not have networked computers, and only one or two would have Internet
- the farm managers, usually.

I just got a reply from a satellite ISP that said it would be possible
to become a commercial VNO, or Virtual Network Operator.

<http://www.idirect.net/vno.shtml>

Her email, which I don't understand fully, states:

{Quote hidden}

I left out the fee, since she might not appreciate it being published.
The satellite bandwith is with VSAT-Systems.com

-- Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@160304 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Mark,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 11:59:57 AM, you wrote:

> Is there any special reason to block or filter Internet access to people?
> Are the users children?

Yes, there may be children as users. Our local school board, for
example, is asking to put Internet in our colony schools. And, as
multi-family farms, we have young children who may be able to gain
access to the Internet computer.

The Hutterites are a Christian intentional communal group; they accept
modern technology, but generally within certain limits. For example,
most colonies do not allow televisions on the colony, except perhaps
in the school, to watch educational videos; others, considered much
more liberal, have few such restrictions, and televisions may be found
openly in their homes. None of them, however are so liberal as to want
their children to have unlimited access to the Internet; many would
rather not have Internet at all. However, the farm managers have made
it clear at a recent meeting, that a controlled Internet access
solution needs to be considered, rather than no Internet.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@160307 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Robert,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 1:55:41 PM, you wrote:

> First, let me see if I understand the problem correctly:

> 1) There are quite a few communities which want to be able to access the
> internet in a controlled fashion.

Yes. From 20 to perhaps 75+ communities right away, and possibly more.

> 2) The local community leadership decides what the community should be able
> to access.

Yes.

> 3) The desired white-list is community specific (although probably quite
> similar from community to community)

Yes. Some communities are also involved in manufacturing, and may not
want to share some of their web sites with other communities who
compete with them.

> 4) There is some form of inter-community cooperation that would make a
> 'global' solution appropriate.

Yes.

> 5) Each community will have its own physical connection to the internet,
> probably through many different ISPs.

Right now that is the case, with most colonies on a Dial-up plan or
broadband. However, a desired solution would be one where one, or
perhaps two ISP's (one for the US, one for Canada, if necessary) would
provide pre-filtered Internet. As I wrote in response to Gehard's
post, there is at least one ISP offering to provide us with possibly
what we are looking for; I just got that email this afternoon.

The second solution, should the first be unfeasible, is clearly
shaping up to be what you are describing below.

> --------------------------------

> If those are the parameters, then this is the solution I see:

> 1) The connection to the local ISP is made through hardware only accessible
> to the community leadership.

Okay.

> 2) A simple router be inserted between the community and the ISP connection.

> 3) Disable any 'default' routes on the router and establish explicit routes
> to the 'whitelist' sites only.

> 4) Use remote administration from a central location to manage the routers.

That might be something we would hire someone to manage.

> 5) Have a standard 'white-list' default of routes that is sent to all the
> routers.

> 6) Allow each community to establish a private 'white-list' extension and
> 'black-list' override using a web tool to the central location.

Sounds good.

> 7) This central location could also maintain SMTP and POP3 servers to manage
> email for all the communities. This would allow virus detection/removal and
> spam control to be done centrally.

Sounds interesting. Steps four through seven could apply to an
ISP-based solution as well.

> Bob  Ammerman
> RAm Systems

Thanks Bob!

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\26@161031 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 14:06 -0500, Patrick Murphy wrote:

> Tim explained this setup to me offlist - thanks Tim! It does eliminate
> the need for a SonicWall or similar device - but it may be hard to
> find someone at each colony capable of setting it up. I'll look into
> it as well.
>
> I'm still, perhaps unrealistically, still hoping for an ISP-based
> solution. Since we are multi-family farms, we have young boys; some of
> them know far more about the computer than their parents, and because
> of them, the parents would prefer to have the Internet filtered before
> it arrives on the place.

How important is bandwidth?

If sacrificing bandwidth is an "OK" solution, perhaps something like
this is an option:

Colony:
Internet Connection -> router -> router with VPN client -> clients

Base:
Internet Connection -> VPN server -> Filter computer -> Internet
Connection

I hope this makes sense. Basically every colony doesn't get a connection
to the internet, their VPN client connects to the "Base" VPN server.
This VPN server could then block out whatever you'd like.

The benefit is it's relatively plug and play for the colonies, you set
up each box and mail it to them. They can set up their networks any way
they want, wired or WiFi. Since the router with VPN is their only
connection to the rest of the internet only physical access can bypass
it (unless they manage to hack the VPN router, possible, but easy enough
to secure).

At the base you can use a computer to act as the VPN server, or just buy
one. The whitelist filtering can then be done with a Linux or Windows
box. Since it's the only point that goes to the rest of the internet
it's the only point that needs configuring. You can also reconfigure it
remotely if you wish.

The bad side of this idea is the all the internet traffic from the
colonies will come through the "Base's" internet connection. If you're
dealing with just a few emails and web pages that's probably OK. If
you're dealing with streaming video or thousands of clients, that won't
be OK.

Basically you are creating a pseudo ISP that the clients connect to
through VPN.

Costs shouldn't be too bad. The VPN client routers are getting pretty
cheap (since they are in the consumer space now), VPN servers are a
little more expensive, but you only need one.

TTYL

Good luck! TTYL

2006\06\26@171823 by John Ferrell

face picon face
The problem is more widespread than you think.

I am setting up a network at my church. I have come to a holding point
because there is currently no way to provide access to the general user
while limiting the possibility that a hormone driven teenager will be caught
on a porn site.

I think I am ready to reduce the service level to one notch above DSL light
since there are only three of us with any connection.

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2006\06\26@172924 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
I am assuming that the expression "have the Internet filtered before it
arrives on the place" is intended to ensure that even with physical access
to the incoming wire from the ISP the young bucks cannot get to something
they shouldn't.

I believe the solution I outlined before can handle this, with the following
simple notes:

1) Access from the router to the ISP requires knowledge of the ISP password,
which would only be stored in the Router and unknown to anyone in the
Colony.

2) Access to the router setup is protected by the router's own password,
which would not be known by anyone at the Colony either.

Thus to get to the internet you have to go through the router, and the
router does all the filtering for you.

The only way I can see to get around this is to get another account with the
same ISP and use it on the same physical connection.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2006\06\27@131633 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Herbert,

Monday, June 26, 2006, 8:53:09 PM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

That password barrier sould be a good deterrent. I'm a bit uncertain,
however, what device would require a password - do modems themselves
allow the requiring of passwords? It's been a while since I've tried
it, but IIRC, I was able to connect my laptop directly to my broadband
modem and surf the net.

{Quote hidden}

I like the idea of ISP transparency - some colonies can only get an
expensive satellite connection, while others would be able to choose a
less expensive connection.

The tradeoff is, then, lower bandwidth vs. ISP transparency.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\27@131634 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Alan,

Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 3:02:02 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Okay, now I get it. Thanks for the description. The picture is falling
into place.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\27@133244 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Bob,

Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 11:04:14 AM, you wrote:

>> Patrick Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> I have been asked to help come up with a "content-managed" Internet
>>> solution for a few dozen Hutterite colonies in southern Manitoba,
>>> Canada, and also for colonies in the midwestern USA; a total of
>>> perhaps 50 to 75 colonies in North America. The Internet use would be
>>> to have access to email and to a specific, limited list of sites.
<snip!>
{Quote hidden}

Okay, please pardon my slowness. Your first suggestion is setting up a
server, and routing all the traffic through that server - much like
Herbert's VPN server but using a Perl script rather than a VPN server?

As to the second, if anyone has any contacts, I would appreciate them.
I did respond off-list to Dave Lag regarding his contacts as well. I
will try to google "Perl server ISP" and see what comes up.

I have to go to a meeting, and won't be able to respond much more
today, but I expect to be back tomorrow.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\27@133247 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Aaron,

Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 10:33:47 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

You are welcome to contact me off-list; I'll gladly share what I can.
Perhaps we can come up with or find a solution together; as Bob
mentioned, there is a need for this type of arrangement, so perhaps
someone has already come up with a suitable solution; or we can try
setting up one of the already mentioned solutions.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\27@171938 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:25 -0500, Patrick Murphy wrote:
> > Obviously, physically securing the hardware is an issue, but I don't see
> > that as a big issue.
>
> That password barrier sould be a good deterrent.

As long as the password is set to something OTHER then the default, you
wouldn't believe how many times I've found devices with the default
password still set.

> I'm a bit uncertain,
> however, what device would require a password - do modems themselves
> allow the requiring of passwords? It's been a while since I've tried
> it, but IIRC, I was able to connect my laptop directly to my broadband
> modem and surf the net.

The password would be in the VPN box. The only connection you supply to
the clients is a connection to the VPN box. The VPN box would be
connected to the modem, and would be the only thing at the colony with a
free connection to the internet, hence the need to physically secure it.
The VPN box's configuration would have to be passworded.

> I like the idea of ISP transparency - some colonies can only get an
> expensive satellite connection, while others would be able to choose a
> less expensive connection.
>
> The tradeoff is, then, lower bandwidth vs. ISP transparency.

Absolutely. That said, if email and a few webpages are the only things
the clients are using bandwidth shouldn't be much of an issue.

TTYL

2006\06\28@103232 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim, Gerhard,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 7:18:23 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Thanks for pointing this out! I'm supposed to talk to a satellite
ISP wholesaler this morning, and I'll bring this up.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\28@112714 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Gerhard,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 8:37:04 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I just got off the phone with a Skycasters rep., a Satellite ISP. She
told me their latency is 1/3 of the satellite industry average, and
that VPN's, and VoIP are well supported. I didn't ask for the latency.
I don't see how VoIP would work well with 700+ ms latency, which,
IIRC, I've read is the industry standard for satellite transmission.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\29@100540 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 9:02:23 PM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I just got a phone call from Galaxy Broadband, a Canadian Satellite
ISP, and they are recommending SnapVPN. I'm not sure I understand it -
I've sent them an email asking for clarification, but the list of
content filtering features seems appropriate:

<http://www.clearpathnet.com/snap/content_filtering.asp>

Standard features include:

* White List filtering:
web access is restricted to specific URL addresses

* Black List filtering:
free web surfing access, except to specific URL addresses
Productivity enhancements include:

* Usage limits by the time of day
(example: during regular business hours)

* Usage limits by how much time per day
(example: limit personal surfing to 1 hour per day)

* Wildcard key word blocking
(example: block all sites with "sex" in the address)

* Flexibility to establish rules at individual user level, or by user group
(example: managers provided wider access)

* Block downloads by file type
(example: exclude .MP3 downloads)

And their overall feature set includes:
* Antivirus
* Firewall Protection
* Intrusion Prevention
* Content Filtering
* VPN
* Remote Access VPN
* Network Management
* Network Reporting
* Device Monitoring

<http://www.clearpathnetworks.com/SNAPVPN/>

They also offer a "Network-based" solution.
<http://www.clearpathnet.com/services/vpn/default.asp>

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\29@102446 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Gerhard,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 7:54:49 PM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Okay, I will. She did say something about proprietary compression
algorithms, but I'll ask her about milliseconds, next time. Lower
latency should result in faster uploading and downloading, if a large
file was being sent, right? So I could ask each ISP how long it should
take to send, say a 100 MB file?

>> and that VPN's, and VoIP are well supported.

> Ask which VPN protocol if you're interested in VPN at all. A common one is
> PPTP (Microsoft), another common one is IPSec (not sure who came up with
> this, but it seems wider supported). Which one to use depends mostly on the
> router equipment that you're planning on using.

I see. One more important consideration added to my list.

>> I don't see how VoIP would work well with 700+ ms latency,

> Not well, but possible. Probably not very attractive in the USA, with the
> possibilities you have through standard POTS lines. This can be different
> in other locations where sometime international phone service is much more
> expensive.

> Gerhard

Oh, okay. Being satellite-based, they do think globally.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\29@122253 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 1:29:42 PM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I want to mention your negative experience with Direcway to them.

> Do you have a budget in mind for monthly operating expenses?

> Tim

Assuming some sort of broadband solution, I hope to have monthly
operating expenses of no more than $100, unless the solution
satisfactorily supports VoIP, which should then justify the costs of a
higher speed connection. However, I hesitate to consider VoIP via
satellite, as the latency must make for noticeable, and for some,
unacceptable delays. I'll ask the sales rep. to call me via VoIP for a
demonstration. If no other connection is available besides dial-up,
then for those communities, higher monthly fees should be expected.
I'm guessing, it would depend on the solution - if we could get, say
75 colonies to form a virtual, satellite ISP, Skycasters tells me the
cost would be $160 a month each. But that would depend on the
bandwidth necessary - perhaps we could feasibly go much slower - that
quote is based on a symmetric :-) connection, sharing one Meg up and one
Meg down.

One tower-based ISP is already offering the colonies in Alberta VoIP,
whitelisted Internet, and email for $400 a month. I estimate that
colonies pay between $300 to $500+ a month for long distance telephone
service, so they are getting some colonies to sign up, and such a
solution is attractive to us.

However, as I see it, the land line, long distance market is rapidly
changing. We are paying 4.5 cents a minute to call within Canada, but
the competition (i.e. http://www.telehop.com) is offering as low as 3 cents
(and only a flat $10 fee for residential!), so how much we should pay
monthly for a land-based, broadband Internet connection should take
this into account.

Another way to consider costs is to look at what some colonies are
already paying for Internet access and the use of a SonicWall or
FortiGate device. I assume broadband access at at least $40 a month,
and the maintenance fee for those devices at around the same amount,
but I could be wrong. Those already set up with such devices would
likely not want to pay more to switch.

If we were to go to a Dial-Up connection solution, then, of course,
the monthly expenses should be much lower. I'm still interested this
possibility, but haven't gotten very far yet. It may be that more than
one solution may be necessary - some requiring broadband, and others
just email.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\29@122301 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim,

Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 1:23:06 PM, you wrote:

> Patrick Murphy wrote:

>> If I use a computer running Linux, that should be a good deterrent by
>> itself, as there are very few in the colonies that have any experience
>> with Linux.

> Never under estimate the ability of a bright, inquisitive teenager to
> learn new things!

That's a good point. A fingerprint scanner was suggested to me as a
way to handle passwords. It is not that much trouble to duplicate a
fingerprint to bypass the scanner. The web has a number of easy to
find articles describing the process. If they can make their own pcb's
as one site suggested: digitize a fingerprint, invert it with
software, etch it onto a copper board, mix up some gelatin and pour it
over the etched board, and just like that, an edible, gelatin
fingerprint capable of bypassing a scanner. An article I read said
those implementing fingerprint scanners should also incorporate a
written password; should someone obtain your fingerprint, at least you
can change the password.

> I would not overlook Linux in general either. If your organization
> does not absolutely require a product that runs on a Microsoft or Mac
> platform a Linux distribution that puts Open Office, Firefox (Web),
> and Thunderbird (Email) on the desktop of a modest machine could save
> you substantial money even if you opt for a distribution of Linux that
> lets you purchase some outside support if required.

> Tim

I'd like to do more with Linux at the colonies, actually. As a start,
I've been installing Open Office on our Windows machines. It works
well enough for us, and the cost savings adds up fast. Another way
I've been saving money is by buying older, Windows 2000 machines. A
933Mhz, 20 GIG, 128MB RAM box is $125 CAD, without the hard drive, its
$60 CAD.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\29@123112 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
Latency:

How long it takes a tiny packet to get from one end of a connection to the
other.

Bandwidth:

How many bytes per second you can push through a connection.

Compression can improve bandwidth, it can do nothing for latency.

High latency can really kill you when what you are doing requires a lot of
round trips between you and the other end. Unfortuanately this can happen
with a lot of web pages.

If you think about it,  a GEOSYNC satallite is 23,000 miles above the
equator. Depending on your latitude, and the relative longitude of the
"bird", you are probably somewhere around 30,000 miles from it.

At the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) a simple round trip to the
satellite is about 320 ms. Since it takes two such roundtrips (one from you
to the satellite and one from the satellite to the ground station) you are
looking at a round trip latency of 600+ ms before you take into account any
latency in the ground based equipment.

Bob Ammerman


2006\06\29@132415 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 09:24 -0500, Patrick Murphy wrote:
> Okay, I will. She did say something about proprietary compression
> algorithms, but I'll ask her about milliseconds, next time. Lower
> latency should result in faster uploading and downloading, if a large
> file was being sent, right? So I could ask each ISP how long it should
> take to send, say a 100 MB file?

Actually no, latency by itself has little impact on how long large files
take to transfer.

Latency affects the "feel" of the internet to your user, a long latency
will make even a high bandwidth connection feel like it's crawling.

It will also slow down small file transfers in quick succession,
something like opening a web page with lots of small thumbnails will
take much longer then with a connection with a short latency.
Downloading many emails at once or articles from a newsgroup is another
area where latency can have a profound impact.

Other areas where latency is critical is online gaming (I know, not an
issue for you) and VOIP (where a high latecy can make a VOIP call
unbearable due to the delay in responses from the other end, and
possible echos due to the echo cancelers not being able to cope).

TTYL



2006\06\29@140531 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu On Behalf Of Patrick Murphy
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:22 PM
>
> Assuming some sort of broadband solution, I hope to have monthly
> operating expenses of no more than $100, unless the solution
> satisfactorily supports VoIP, which should then justify the costs of a
> higher speed connection. However, I hesitate to consider VoIP via
> satellite, as the latency must make for noticeable, and for some,
> unacceptable delays. I'll ask the sales rep. to call me via VoIP for a

At the large latency of satellite broadband I think everyone will find VoIP
performance unacceptable. IME, latency over 300ms in phone calls is noticed
by just about everyone.

Paul

<snip>
> --
> Best regards,
> Patrick Murphy

2006\06\29@142945 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 29, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote:

> ower latency should result in faster uploading and downloading,
> if a large file was being sent, right?

No, it SHOULDN'T.  However, given the sorry state of TCP
implementations in user end system (esp windows), it probably
will. (longer explanation: TCP uses a sliding window algorithm
that should make transfer rate independent of delay, as long
as bandiwidth*RTDelay < windowsize.  TCP normally handles windows
of 64kbytes, and adds the "window scaling" option to get larger
windows.  But much PC software defaults to 4kbyte windows, and I
hear that the microsoft implementation of window scaling doesn't
work much...)

(high latency will probably make on-line gaming particularly
painful.  Perhaps that would be a feature in some cases?)

BillW

2006\06\29@185353 by Robert Ammerman

picon face
Re: VOIP and Satellite:


My daughter is on a mission trip in China this summer and calls us via VOIP
from her computer to our POTS phone. I assume the link is goinig over a
satellite (even if it isn't its still about 12,000 miles+). The latency is
very noticable, and irritating, but we are more than willing to put up with
it to talk with her.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2006\06\29@192159 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 06:53 PM 6/29/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Re: VOIP and Satellite:
>
>
>My daughter is on a mission trip in China this summer and calls us via VOIP
>from her computer to our POTS phone. I assume the link is goinig over a
>satellite (even if it isn't its still about 12,000 miles+). The latency is
>very noticable, and irritating, but we are more than willing to put up with
>it to talk with her.
>
>Bob Ammerman
>RAm Systems

Bob, what's involved with getting that up and running? I just got the cell
phone bill from my last trip to China, and at a rate exceeding >$10K/year it
would be a bit financially painful to sustain that for a relatively long
duration... and  my family isn't as comfortable with e-mail as I am, so
something that interacts with POTS at this end would be very nice.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffKILLspamspam@spam@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->>Test equipment, parts OLED displys http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2006\06\29@193347 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

{Quote hidden}

I use http://www.sipphone.com . I have an "ethernet phone" here at work,
an ATA adapter at home that connects between ethernet and POTS phone
wiring, and "The Gizmo Project" on my linux laptop.

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\06\30@200456 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim,

Thursday, June 29, 2006, 11:47:55 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

A second satellite ISP has called back, selling Direcway, although the
name is apparently changing to Hughesnet. Galaxy Broadband is a
Canadian reseller (partner?) and is now willing to allow us to rent
space on their site to run a "private gateway."

This private gateway is similar to the community gateway that Shawn
brought up earlier, but hosted at the ISP (for around $1,000 a month).
They are willing to route all of our communities through that gateway,
and we and/or they would maintain it. Unlike the first Satellite ISP,
they don't have a five figure setup fee, and also, each user would
have a separate account, so we wouldn't be sharing bandwidth.

After the setup costs, they want $70 a month per user, and $1,000 per
month for the housing the equipment. Assuming 40 users, that amounts
to $25 each, for a total monthly fee of around $100.00.

They said if users located in the US also wanted to be routed through
our gateway, they would allow it. They are also looking into whether a
single content filtering device, such as the FortiGate I mentioned, or
another they favor called a SnapVPN could be used at their location.

He has offered to cooperate in setting up a pilot site.

<snip!>

{Quote hidden}

Good point. I'll have to find out what commitment, if any, we have
with our current long distance provider, and what commitment the
competitors are requiring.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\30@200500 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Tim,

Thursday, June 29, 2006, 11:32:24 AM, you wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Thanks to all of you for helping me understand latency and bandwidth.
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. And it's good
to know how inaccurate my assumptions can be. :-)

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony

2006\06\30@200505 by Patrick Murphy

flavicon
face
Hi Gerhard,

> You've got already a number of comments on this :)

<snip!>

Thanks for your summary!

>> Oh, okay. Being satellite-based, they do think globally.

> It's not /that/ globally... the satellites have a quite limited area of
> coverage. Often they publish coverage maps for their satellites.

> Gerhard

The Galaxy Broadband Satellite rep. asked me how far north, and how
far northwest the colonies would be. He said, actually, those farther
northwest (in central to northern Alberta) would have a stronger signal.

--
Best regards,
Patrick Murphy
James Valley Colony


'Re[2]: [OT]: ISP-based whitelisting service?'
2006\07\01@154906 by Robert Ammerman
picon face
{Quote hidden}

Very simple: See http://www.skype.com

Bob

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...