From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 09:56:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25301 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 09:56:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA25282; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 09:56:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from batie@agora.rdrop.com) Received: (from batie@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA06538; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 09:56:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981228095606.50083@rdrop.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 09:56:06 -0800 From: Alan Batie To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: ATM WAN interface Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-md5; boundary=UXtIhxfXey3p5aM3 X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --UXtIhxfXey3p5aM3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii A quick search through the archives indicates that the only ATM support in FreeBSD is for 25 and 155 Mbps LAN interface cards. I thought I'd ask live once before giving up on the idea of a T1 or T3 interface, or do you just use a standard T1/T3 sync card and the rest is software? -- Alan Batie ______ www.rdrop.com/users/batie Me batie@agora.rdrop.com \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers 27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ www.anti-spam.net NO SPAM! --UXtIhxfXey3p5aM3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNofGNYv4wNua7QglAQGllwP/a9xZNreeZmXcbIDMFhHvP6O9rC6bNes4 8LqQ6pbx0YCY4FCwNz99HvbXD+sio5XJEt71qUhAxyWUfXo7MgIsoVSmPDS6PsKP d2ZdHraOIifWRaBpYa6ZRe9c+ONlzD/V6klYH/4viDuqgjY7H5MS5a7ErNXoX3Pj S3byX2+LP/s= =qceY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UXtIhxfXey3p5aM3-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 11:47:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA08856 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:47:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA08851 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:47:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA07799; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:49:06 GMT Message-Id: <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:49:01 -0500 To: Alan Batie From: Dennis Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19981228095606.50083@rdrop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 09:56 AM 12/28/98 -0800, you wrote: >A quick search through the archives indicates that the only ATM support >in FreeBSD is for 25 and 155 Mbps LAN interface cards. I thought I'd >ask live once before giving up on the idea of a T1 or T3 interface, or >do you just use a standard T1/T3 sync card and the rest is software? There is no such thing as an ATM/WAN interface per se...they just use a box that provides an ATM interface and connect it to a DS3. Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). so ATM over a DS3 is not nearly the bandwidth of using straight HSSI or PTP. ATM is meant as a medium that can be switched at high speed, but as a PTP mechanism it is very poor. Dennis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 11:55:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA10731 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kjsl.com (Limpia.KJSL.COM [198.137.202.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10713 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from javier@kjsl.com) Received: (from javier@localhost) by kjsl.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA26758; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:55:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199812281955.LAA26758@kjsl.com> From: Javier Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dennis Cc: Alan Batie , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> References: <19981228095606.50083@rdrop.com> <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.33 under Emacs 19.34.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dennis writes: > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). so ATM over a DS3 > is not nearly the bandwidth of using straight HSSI or PTP. ATM is meant > as a medium that can be switched at high speed, but as a PTP mechanism > it is very poor. I've often wondered how well IP would do, throughput-wise, over ATM with its 53 byte cells. "Packet fragmentation overhead" comes to mind. I've never seen actual performance figures, however. -jav To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 12:40:05 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA15577 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:40:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15572 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:40:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from batie@agora.rdrop.com) Received: (from batie@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA21890; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:39:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981228123944.43552@rdrop.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:39:44 -0800 From: Alan Batie To: Dennis Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface References: <19981228095606.50083@rdrop.com> <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-md5; boundary="B/JsCI69OhZNC5rO" X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199812281449.OAA07799@etinc.com>; from Dennis on Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 02:49:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --B/JsCI69OhZNC5rO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 02:49:01PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). Yes, I'm not at all thrilled about it, but that's how US Worst pipes xDSL feeds to ISPs, so if I can't get an ATM interface on a FreeBSD box, I'll have to buy an ATM router if I want to support DSL. -- Alan Batie ______ www.rdrop.com/users/batie Me batie@agora.rdrop.com \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers 27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ www.anti-spam.net NO SPAM! --B/JsCI69OhZNC5rO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNofskIv4wNua7QglAQFgEAQAqagn+yTjPrWlUZbPpKLWB9SZIEmc0e3X 7opkaP5ixddAkZgfpCgjFysWhiPpQ75POx5zshZqDv9hn0xEXjU8AbvhlIo6n4xw 1//p5NfEk11YBCvT6e25ZA6wFwoHa1sgUiB/dbOkQx/di9cY8ZA5o3S9S5JTImvV o1iezVqk3W8= =Fjah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --B/JsCI69OhZNC5rO-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 12:43:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA16416 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:43:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from rachel.paradise.net.nz (rachel.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA16393 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:43:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shane.cole@staff.paradise.net.nz) Received: from shanelaptop (shaneremote.paradise.net.nz [203.96.155.1]) by rachel.paradise.net.nz (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA21741; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:43:08 +1300 (NZDT) (envelope-from shane.cole@staff.paradise.net.nz) Message-ID: <016501be32a2$0e8a7bc0$019b60cb@paradise.net.nz> From: "Shane Cole" To: "Javier Henderson" , "Dennis" Cc: "Alan Batie" , Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:38:27 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org We recently changed from using a 1920kbit E1 W-DDS circuit to a 1920kbit service that is delivered to us over 'ATM' (it still arrives on a V.35 connection to a Serial on my router..., I have noticed a drop in my mrtg graphs of bandwidth utilisation at peak times of around 50kbits. Of course the point of going to ATM is to use a OC-3 interface and be able to scale well past 2Megs which we can't do until the Single Mode card arrives... Regards Shane ----- Original Message ----- From: Javier Henderson To: Dennis Cc: Alan Batie ; Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 1998 8:55 AM Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface Dennis writes: > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). so ATM over a DS3 > is not nearly the bandwidth of using straight HSSI or PTP. ATM is meant > as a medium that can be switched at high speed, but as a PTP mechanism > it is very poor. I've often wondered how well IP would do, throughput-wise, over ATM with its 53 byte cells. "Packet fragmentation overhead" comes to mind. I've never seen actual performance figures, however. -jav To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 13:26:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA22785 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:26:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from korin.warman.org.pl (korin.nask.waw.pl [195.187.243.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA22778 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:26:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abial@nask.pl) Received: from localhost (abial@localhost) by korin.warman.org.pl (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26601; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:30:45 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: korin.warman.org.pl: abial owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:30:42 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki X-Sender: abial@korin.warman.org.pl To: Javier Henderson cc: Dennis , Alan Batie , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: <199812281955.LAA26758@kjsl.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Javier Henderson wrote: > Dennis writes: > > > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). so ATM over a DS3 > > is not nearly the bandwidth of using straight HSSI or PTP. ATM is meant > > as a medium that can be switched at high speed, but as a PTP mechanism > > it is very poor. > > I've often wondered how well IP would do, throughput-wise, > over ATM with its 53 byte cells. "Packet fragmentation overhead" comes > to mind. I've never seen actual performance figures, however. Quite bad.. :-/ Let's do some math: 1) Suppose we have a 256-byte IP packet (which is quite close to average packet length on the net). This is usually wrapped into LLC/SNAP (8 bytes), then passed to AAL5 (which adds 8-byte trailer), and finally broken into 48-byte pieces of ATM payload (with 5-byte overhead). This gives us 6 cells to transmit, and total of 318 bytes. The overhead is around 24%. Of course this is only the overhead of ATM. 2) Suppose we have an interactive session, where 1-10 bytes are transmitted as a TCP payload. This gives us a 41-50 byte IP packets. Let's add LLC/SNAP and AAL5 (16 bytes, total 57-66 bytes), then we break it into cells (2 cells), and the total sum of bytes to transmit is 106. The overhead is 86% (for 41-byte IP packets), and 61% for 50-byte packet. The overhead counted against the TCP payload is quite horrendous.. :-)) So, the beauty of ATM is its ability to transmit _different_ types of data over the same link (such as IP, circuit emulation, video etc..), and not its efficiency when it comes to throughput - because this is where it really sucks... Hope this helps a bit. Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 13:30:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA23732 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:30:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from korin.warman.org.pl (korin.nask.waw.pl [195.187.243.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA23722 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:30:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abial@nask.pl) Received: from localhost (abial@localhost) by korin.warman.org.pl (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA28840; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:35:29 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: korin.warman.org.pl: abial owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:35:29 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki X-Sender: abial@korin.warman.org.pl To: Alan Batie cc: Dennis , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: <19981228123944.43552@rdrop.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Alan Batie wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 02:49:01PM -0500, Dennis wrote: > > Note that ATM has a LOT of overhead (like 30%). > > Yes, I'm not at all thrilled about it, but that's how US Worst pipes > xDSL feeds to ISPs, so if I can't get an ATM interface on a FreeBSD > box, I'll have to buy an ATM router if I want to support DSL. Well, of course you can have an ATM interface on a FreeBSD box - use e.g. Fore PCA200e card (155Mbps OC3c, either single- or multi-mode fiber). Any machine above Pentium 166, running fairly recent FreeBSD 3.0 will be able to saturate the link. The cost compared to Cisco 47xx is quite competitive... :-) Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 13:44:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA26685 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:44:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26533 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:44:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from batie@agora.rdrop.com) Received: (from batie@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26830; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:44:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981228134427.31872@rdrop.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:44:27 -0800 From: Alan Batie To: Andrzej Bialecki Cc: Dennis , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface References: <19981228123944.43552@rdrop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-md5; boundary=X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: ; from Andrzej Bialecki on Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:35:29PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:35:29PM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Well, of course you can have an ATM interface on a FreeBSD box - use e.g. > Fore PCA200e card (155Mbps OC3c, either single- or multi-mode fiber). I'm much too small an operation to do 155Mbps, unfortunately... I need to start at T1 and work my way up... -- Alan Batie ______ www.rdrop.com/users/batie Me batie@agora.rdrop.com \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers 27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ www.anti-spam.net NO SPAM! --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNof7u4v4wNua7QglAQEzlwP+KbZqTRucjRdqLIvUFiwrXyPc4OsvIVLs x5IPcbZdjEGMCXQ1VkbmwYyhkSu2D4/hIefUIhZcmzxxv7NlJZ2nEgXJqg/0FNoK TasiIvkQgIfeDBFDRmJJA5KDFkJSN1pB01toO/ezQ5ynIvt4cPpnd2LqlDJo0sxI UTcXHSA42A0= =Q+nN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 14:40:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04384 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:40:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from korin.warman.org.pl (korin.nask.waw.pl [195.187.243.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04208 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:39:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abial@nask.pl) Received: from localhost (abial@localhost) by korin.warman.org.pl (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20524; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 23:44:52 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: korin.warman.org.pl: abial owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 23:44:52 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki X-Sender: abial@korin.warman.org.pl To: Alan Batie cc: Dennis , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: <19981228134427.31872@rdrop.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Alan Batie wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:35:29PM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > > Well, of course you can have an ATM interface on a FreeBSD box - use e.g. > > Fore PCA200e card (155Mbps OC3c, either single- or multi-mode fiber). > > I'm much too small an operation to do 155Mbps, unfortunately... I need to > start at T1 and work my way up... You don't have to use up all the 155Mbps - this is just the clock speed, and actual VC bandwidth is what they should charge you for - at least this is the way we do it in Poland. So, you can have the 155Mpbs ATM connection, but an E1 virtual circuit set up as your uplink. Then, your provider would do policing on their switches to enforce that speed. Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 15:33:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA11801 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:33:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from techbsd.csw.net (techbsd.csw.net [209.136.194.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11789 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:33:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lambert@techbsd.csw.net) Received: (from lambert@localhost) by techbsd.csw.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA09460 for freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 17:33:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from lambert) Message-ID: <19981228173301.A9432@techbsd.csw.net> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 17:33:01 -0600 From: Scott Lambert To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BESS internet filtering References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Phillip Salzman on Sat, Dec 26, 1998 at 01:21:22PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Dec 26, 1998 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Phillip Salzman wrote: > > This may be a little bit off topic, but does anyone > know much about the BESS filtering system? It is a program > that filters "unwanted" content from ISPs dialup users. The service comes as a black box which they configure and then ship to you. I'm not sure what platform it uses for the OS but they are responsible for the maintainance of the system for the term of your monthly contract. All hardware and software are n2n2's problem. You just supply an IP for the box and add any allow or deny lists you want to override n2h2's lists via a web based administration form. They have about 40-50 people going through the new web sites which are added to yahoo and altavista's search engines each day through some deal they've made. We are looking at using it to provide filtered content that the kiddies can't get around for those customers who want it. The main problem I can see with the system from the ISP's point of view is getting people to configure their web browser's properly to use the system. With the Radius setup they allegedly can't see anything without having the proxies set correctly. That makes things more secure than NetNanny type programs but it may be more hassle for my Tech Support department. Of course, my Support department can deal with the hassle for the value added pricing to the customer. > I was wondering if any of you have had legal problems with > something like this, or technical. Someone I know told > me it either runs FreeBSD or Linux, but he wasn't sure. With > a hacked-up squid, or started with squid. I can't think of any legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer. Your customer is specifically asking for their content to be filtered. The "un-desirable" sites on the net are already filtered by client based filtering software as it is, so this is nothing new to them. -- Scott Lambert lambert@techbsd.csw.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 16:04:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA17050 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:04:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from wopr.caltech.edu (wopr.caltech.edu [131.215.240.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA17043 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:04:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mph@wopr.caltech.edu) Received: (from mph@localhost) by wopr.caltech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA08413; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:04:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mph) Message-ID: <19981228160408.C7980@wopr.caltech.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 16:04:08 -0800 From: Matthew Hunt To: Scott Lambert , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BESS internet filtering References: <19981228173301.A9432@techbsd.csw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19981228173301.A9432@techbsd.csw.net>; from Scott Lambert on Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 05:33:01PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 05:33:01PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote: > The service comes as a black box which they configure and then ship to you. > I'm not sure what platform it uses for the OS but they are responsible for the > maintainance of the system for the term of your monthly contract. The last time I had any (brief) experience with Bess, it ran Linux. That was perhaps 18 months ago. -- Matthew Hunt * UNIX is a lever for the intellect. -J.R. Mashey http://www.pobox.com/~mph/pgp.key for PGP public key 0x67203349. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Dec 28 22:31:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA26472 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:31:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mailhub.ainet.com (mailhub.ainet.com [204.30.40.29]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA26467 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:31:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jmscott@ainet.com) Received: from shell.ainet.com (jmscott@shell.ainet.com [204.30.40.108]) by mailhub.ainet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA22530; Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:31:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by shell.ainet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26485; for freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG; Mon, 28 Dec 98 22:33:13 PST Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 22:33:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Scott" To: Scott Lambert Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BESS internet filtering In-Reply-To: <19981228173301.A9432@techbsd.csw.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org __$0.02__ On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Scott Lambert wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 1998 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Phillip Salzman wrote: > > > > This may be a little bit off topic, but does anyone > > know much about the BESS filtering system? It is a program > > that filters "unwanted" content from ISPs dialup users. I work for a small ISP, we've had the occasional similar request, usually more from businesses/schools than from dialup customers. > > The service comes as a black box which they configure and then ship to you. > I'm not sure what platform it uses for the OS but they are responsible for the > maintainance of the system for the term of your monthly contract. This sounds like it would be the best type of arrangement, assuming that the contract isn't and arm and a leg :-) > > The main problem I can see with the system from the ISP's point of view is > getting people to configure their web browser's properly to use the system. > With the Radius setup they allegedly can't see anything without having the > proxies set correctly. That makes things more secure than NetNanny type > programs but it may be more hassle for my Tech Support department. Of course, > my Support department can deal with the hassle for the value added pricing to > the customer. This is the part that I've thought about from time to time. For the longest time we've been using Livingston PM2e's, we've been moving to PM3's for awhile ( but still have some 2e's :-). I thought I recall reading a way to support transparent proxing. I'll have to go back and look at things, but I would think that this should be possible. Then proxy setting or no, they go through that filter for all port 80 requests ( for example ). Hummmmm. > I can't think of any legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer. Your customer > is specifically asking for their content to be filtered. The "un-desirable" > sites on the net are already filtered by client based filtering software > as it is, so this is nothing new to them. I wouldn't think that there is too much of a legal issue, since as you pointed out, these people requested the filtering. END __$0.02__ I would sure like to come up with some good filtering offers, but what happens if they miss something? Will the customer get mad because it wasn't blocked? * Joseph M. Scott * jmscott@ainet.com * American InfoMetrics * Modesto, CA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-isp Tue Dec 29 23:41:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA15179 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:41:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from super-g.inch.com (super-g.com [207.240.140.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA15172 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:41:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from spork@super-g.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by super-g.inch.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA20776; Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:39:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:39:42 -0500 (EST) From: spork X-Sender: spork@super-g.inch.com To: Andrzej Bialecki cc: Alan Batie , Dennis , isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ATM WAN interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Interesting... Is anyone using this type of config to handle dsl customers? How many PVCs could a beefy box handle? We've been looking at ATM cards for existing routers and the RedBack box as well... What type of ATM functionality do we have right now? With dsl, you could easily reach over 1000 pvcs. Some dsl providers are even doing ppp over atm (blech, more overhead) to allow for a "sign-on" type deal... Thanks, Charles --- Charles Sprickman spork@super-g.com --- "...there's no idea that's so good you can't ruin it with a few well-placed idiots." On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Alan Batie wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 10:35:29PM +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > > > Well, of course you can have an ATM interface on a FreeBSD box - use e.g. > > > Fore PCA200e card (155Mbps OC3c, either single- or multi-mode fiber). > > > > I'm much too small an operation to do 155Mbps, unfortunately... I need to > > start at T1 and work my way up... > > You don't have to use up all the 155Mbps - this is just the clock speed, > and actual VC bandwidth is what they should charge you for - at least this > is the way we do it in Poland. So, you can have the 155Mpbs ATM > connection, but an E1 virtual circuit set up as your uplink. Then, your > provider would do policing on their switches to enforce that speed. > > Andrzej Bialecki > > -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- > ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: > Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" > Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ > -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message