WAN Ideas

Balfa

c'mon folks, post on the irishwan.org boards. They were set up for a reason... no point in us flicking back and forth between this and them.

take it here: http://www.irishwan.org/board/

cmkrnl

Originally posted by bkehoe
Re Backbones;
The main IrishWAN.org communities will be linked by 11MBit backbones. This can be increased to 22MBit if needed by using 2 antennas and cards; .

Given the ****e (sorry excerable :-) ) security of WEP, I would recommend the tunnelling all wireless traffic through something a bit more robust, Given that you have a PIX to work with. PPTP (despite its flaws) would very straightforward to use for Win32 & Linux users.

You dont want some scrote freeloading off all the hard work.


greg

cmkrnl

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man
Are we going to use RIPE assigned IP addresses or private address ranges? If you use a public IP address range for an area like Dublin with multiple subnets, you'd need a good few addresses. I'm not sure about RIPE, but in the US you have to pay for IP addresses.

Christ no :-), Have you ever tried getting public addresses from RIPE ? It would be easier to shove a bowling ball through the ringpiece of a terrier! It took me from the end of Aug last year till November to get a /24 for a project I was e-security lead on, http://www.mlhsbc.co.uk/. That despite lieing convincingly through my teeth on the paperwork & having a large corporate clout (so I thought) it counts for nothing. Concerts RIPE admin was a RFPITA.

You want nice RFC1918 space internally, properly subnetted so one can summarise for OSPF/iBGP whatever later on.


greg

The Cigarette Smoking Man

Originally posted by cmkrnl


Christ no :-), Have you ever tried getting public addresses from RIPE ? It would be easier to shove a bowling ball through the ringpiece of a terrier! It took me from the end of Aug last year till November to get a /24 for a project I was e-security lead on, http://www.mlhsbc.co.uk/. That despite lieing convincingly through my teeth on the paperwork & having a large corporate clout (so I thought) it counts for nothing. Concerts RIPE admin was a RFPITA.

You want nice RFC1918 space internally, properly subnetted so one can summarise for OSPF/iBGP whatever later on.


greg

I have to agree, private IPs would be better in this situation.

Another Q: Can you configure squid to do load balancing? We'll probably end up with multiple Internet Connections at each of the backbone nodes.

cmkrnl

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man


I have to agree, private IPs would be better in this situation.

Another Q: Can you configure squid to do load balancing? We'll probably end up with multiple Internet Connections at each of the backbone nodes.

Not within squid itself, You could however use an L4 switch or if you fancied rolling your own something like

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/

or

http://ultramonkey.sourceforge.net/

to do the job for you.

Ideally one wants the proxies to be seamless using something WCCP/ipfilter to redirect outbound port 80 traffic rather than configured directly in the browser. This means you can then use the networking hardware to handle failure/failover/LB automatically rather than the users.

I have in the past used Foundary ServerIrons to LB FW1 on Linux & they really were sweet.


greg

Urban Weigl

An alternative to 802.11b is 2-way MMDS. This requires I believe a license, but that shouldn't be too hard to get -- especially if it's a community-based thing. This is the technology used by Chorus for their PowerNet service.

Just thought I would point out that there is an alternative, as 802.11b (or what Apple calls AirPort) has been talked about exclusively at the moment. Check out this results page on Google for lots of information on 2-way MMDS:

http://www.google.com/search?q=2-way+MMDS

The Cigarette Smoking Man

Originally posted by cmkrnl


Not within squid itself, You could however use an L4 switch or if you fancied rolling your own something like

http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/

or

http://ultramonkey.sourceforge.net/

to do the job for you.

Ideally one wants the proxies to be seamless using something WCCP/ipfilter to redirect outbound port 80 traffic rather than configured directly in the browser. This means you can then use the networking hardware to handle failure/failover/LB automatically rather than the users.

I have in the past used Foundary ServerIrons to LB FW1 on Linux & they really were sweet.


greg

You going to donate a ServerIron Greg?

How many users can each of the Omni Direction antennas take? Also, do they interfere with each other?

cmkrnl

Originally posted by The Cigarette Smoking Man


You going to donate a ServerIron Greg?

I wish :-), however I have it on good authority ;-) that the cheap NetIron L2 switches are functionally identical to the ServerIron XL. One firmware flash later 'et voila' :-)


greg

Bard

By request, this thread is being moved to the "Wireless" board, which would, apparently, be a more appropriate home for it.

trap4

Hello all,

I'm just catching up with this extreeeeemely interesting topic now. As one of the people who was kicked of Surf (No) Limits I would love to get one of these networks up and going.

I'm in west Limerick (near Newcastlewest). Anyone else from hereabouts? I'd like to get one of these nets going in this region. Can bkehoe create a Limerick forum on IrishWan.org? And talking about that site, is anyone else having problems accessing the forums on it? Everytime I try to get in there it prompts me to download a file!

By the way, am I even posting this in the right thread at this stage? Has this conversation moved elsewhere?

Thanks,

bkehoe

Ehh trap, since this thread was removed from the forum where it had the most interest, no one it really applies to can see it any more.

Anyway, Limerick was created yesterday, and Moriarty, the Limerick admin will have a website up at the weekend.

All the relevent conversation for the Irish WAN is taking place in the Irishwan.org forums.

You are the only person getting that. Cause: a browser thats pretending to the server it supports HTTP 1.1, but doesn't actually know what to expect when the server compresses the data being sent to it. As I said in reply to your comment, you should make sure that if you're using a proxy, HTTP 1.1 is enabled in your browser config. If that doesn't apply to you, you must be using a very old browser, or one with a bad config.

Brendan

alastair

Originally posted by bkehoe
You are the only person getting that. Cause: a browser thats pretending to the server it supports HTTP 1.1, but doesn't actually know what to expect when the server compresses the data being sent to it. As I said in reply to your comment, you should make sure that if you're using a proxy, HTTP 1.1 is enabled in your browser config. If that doesn't apply to you, you must be using a very old browser, or one with a bad config.

Brendan

'Fraid not Brendan,

I can't access the forums either. I'm using IE5 and not going through any proxy settings. The relevant point to note however is that I'm on a mac.

No problems with other varied forums.

cheers,
alastair

bkehoe

I have reluctantly disabled compression, as it will more than double the time needed to load mainly text pages in the forums.

People who have browsers that say that they're HTTP 1.1 compliant but don't work with it, should look for a newer version, or use a broswer like Opera, so that I can enable it again.

Brendan

alastair

Thanks Brendan,

I'm in now. It's all flying along merrily. I don't think there's any problem with the current download times.

alastair

Ivan

I was having the exact same problems.
As far as I know the IE is up-to-date but we are going through a proxy.

Just leave it as is? - seems a fair few people were having trouble with it.