Broadband with added fibre?

[Andrew Gabriel]

We had this one in the office a few years back...

"I can't see Uranus." "That's because I'm sitting down..."

[Michael Chare]

Not if you connect the house wiring via a filter / filtered faceplate.

My line speed is determined by the length of my phone line which has a 63db ADSL line loss.

Whilst isolating my household wiring does make a critical difference and is something that I can do, it is not the primary cause of the signal loss.

[tony sayer]

In article , Tim Streater scribeth thus

Unless you have neighbours wi-fi points to the left, right, and up and down from you;!..

And video senders all vying for the same bit of spectrum..

[tony sayer]

In article , Bill scribeth thus

Change ISP then. We had some problems with Eclipse and went to Zen who sorted a long-standing problem that Eclipse were wringing their hands over.

Excellent support and sensible people 'tho they do speak in a strange tongue called "Lancashire" which is perhaps 60 dB better than someone adrift in a call centre in the Pacific ocean;!.

Shade more expensive than some but worth it for the competence!.....

[The Natural Philosopher]

WE get our logs in 15 tonne lots of the back of a lorry. Never thought of downloading em.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I like IDNET. They speak Hertfordshire.

[Dave Liquorice]

where you

DECT cordless phones don't use 2.4GHz, that all those systems you mention use. DECT uses 1.88 - 1.9GHz.

[Mike Clarke]

Looks like it's either a very bad BT line or serious contention. If you get a decent sync speed then it's likely to be contention. I'm a similar distance from our exchange and sync at 8128 Kb/sec with speedtest results usually in the range 5400 to 6400 Kb/sec.

There's still a few ISP's offering fixed IP at no extra cost, though I don't suppose that will continue for long now that all the IPV4 numbers are running out.

I've also been told that their "unlimited" service has a fair

I don't think you'll find any ISP's who provide a "unlimited" service without some sort of usage control. Unfortunately most of them are very secretive about what the policy is.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Simply untrue

Since every connection needs an IP address, whether its static or dynamic makes very little difference to IP numbers.

And since NAT became de facto, huge blocks of corporate addresses have been given back to the IP pool. To the point where IPV6 has not been needed to be rushed into service.

That may change when every chinese and indian citizen is online, but not just yet.

Failure to deliver a static address is simply sheer laziness on the part of ISP's.

It is a simple table entry in their Radius servers.

The smaller ones are generally unlimited except on total bandwidth.

The large ISPs with big marketing budgets are all trying to get their prices down, and they do that by skiping on service, bandwidth and the like.

The shot answer is to pay a little more, go with a smaller independent, and get a better service.

[John Williamson]

They get re-used. Not all users are connected at all times, though it is becoming more common. Certainly this (3G mobile) IP address will be re-used within seconds of me logging off, as was the IP address I used on dialup. For an ISP the size of BT, it may save them 5 or 10% on the number of IP addresses needed.

At current rates, I've seen it estimated that at current rates the last available IPV4 address will be issued within months. On a slight digression, at least one newsgroup now needs 64 bit article IDs.

[Tim Watts]

John Williamson ( [e-mail]) wibbled on Wednesday 16 February 2011 10:09:

Things are moving - Imperial College now has an IPv6 infrastructure being implemented. I've had my personal IPv6 range from Andrews+Arnold for years but apart from a brief test, I have not yet implemented it - partly because I have a couple of IPv4 ranges.

Oddly enough, it is SWMBO who is demanding IPv6 at home, so time to start.

Currently I have a Linksys WRT54G running linux 2.4/OpenWRT as my principle router/firewall. I really need a Linux 2.6 router before I go full on IPv6 as it is a notch better that 2.4 at hndling IPv6, notably the netfilter layer.

OK - could terminate the IPv6 tunnel on a PC but the network gets messy.

So, off to find a small low power linux based device with gigabit (need 3-4 ports, one must be gig with a decent NIC, preferably Intel e1000 that might actually handle routing at gig speeds) and a decent processer that runs linux 2.6 - anyone got any recommendations?

[tony sayer]

Have a look at Netstumbler and then take a drive through an average build up area and see the results of a Five minute drive;!..

We're awash in a sea of 2.4 Ghz;!..

The odd bit of DECT emission is trivial in comparison..

Course where you live Dave might be different...

[Tim Streater]

At DANTE when providing the GEANT2 network for JANET and its European counterparts, v6 was part of the service. Since AFAIK all the European NRENs also implement it too, at least the research establishment should be able to work end-to-end across Europe using v6.

When we were getting commodity service for GEANT2 from big ISPs, they typically only offered a tunnelled v6 service. Their response to our questions as to why they did not offer a native one was "No demand". This was 3 to 4 years ago so things may have changed by now.

[Tim Watts]

Tim Streater ( [e-mail]) wibbled on Wednesday 16 February

2011 12:26:

Sadly, that abomination known as NAT meant people did not have a reason, or rather had enough of a reason to ignore the problem.

[The Natural Philosopher]

which hardly makes any difference really.

Got a reference for that?

Last scare was in the 90's, when we all went NAT and handed back shitloads of blocks. and started multi-hosting servers on a single address.

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its not an abomination. Its an elegant technical solution that has allowed the net to expand with a lot more security than it might otherwise have done.

The fact that NAT is a de facto firewall screening off large networks from the internet without having to explicitly firewall them is a Damned Good Thing.

[Dave Liquorice]

True and netstumbler won't show you half of what is in the 2.4GHz band either but it's not relevant to a cordless DECT phone having problems as DECT isn't in 2.4GHz.

[Tim Streater]

I haven't looked recently but IIRC there is something about it on the RIPE website. RIPE is the registry for Europe - they hand out IP addresses and are therefor in a position to be authoritative about IP address usage.

[tony sayer]

Oi!, Who mention DECT phones originally?..

[Tim Watts]

The Natural Philosopher ( [e-mail]) wibbled on Wednesday 16 February 2011 13:33:

It is as elegant as a bodge can be - but bodge is all it is IMO.

In as much as it a dumb solution to a load of dumb users. You will note that IPv6 has no NAT abilities in the form being discussed, and with good reason.

The correct solution is to have firewalls on by default on the customer's uplink router, not bugger up the interent for their convenience.