From ghunt at NRAO.EDU Fri Jan 4 17:07:09 2002 From: ghunt at NRAO.EDU (Gareth Hunt) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:07:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [comm]Telecommunications meeting on Tuesday Message-ID: <200201042207.RAA07314@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> Guys, There are two issues that I would like to discuss at the communication meeting next week. Since together they will certainly last more than the scheduled 1/2 hour, I have reserved the video systems for 10-12 EST, 08-10 MST. While I doubt that we will want the full two hours, it gives flexibility in case there is useful discussion. So: Telecommunications video meeting Tuesday Jan 8 at 10EST/08MST/07PST. We will open up the audio to 1-434-296-7082 Main subjects: 1. Video system security 2. Requirements for the new intranet contract I will circulate separately a brief outline for item 2. Alan may do likewise for item 1. Cheers, Gareth. From abridle at nrao.edu Mon Jan 7 11:30:53 2002 From: abridle at nrao.edu (Alan Bridle) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 11:30:53 -0500 Subject: [comm]Re: Telecommunications meeting on Tuesday References: <200201042207.RAA07314@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> Message-ID: <3C39CD3D.F61E1E46@nrao.edu> Gareth Hunt wrote: > > > So: Telecommunications video meeting Tuesday Jan 8 at 10EST/08MST/07PST. > We will open up the audio to 1-434-296-7082 > > Main subjects: > > 1. Video system security > 2. Requirements for the new intranet contract > > I will circulate separately a brief outline for item 2. Alan may do likewise > for item 1. > I think the video items we should discuss are: 1) Adding password protection to the administrative setups on the Polycoms. Over the holidays the Tucson settings were interfered with by an "amateur" staff member who was reportedly trying to configure the Polycom 128 there to talk to Chile over the Internet (which our router filters would have prevented anyway). Kevin had to redo his settings and we should discuss the use of admin passwords for the unit setups to mitigate this. Unfortunately, if an admin password is set then you have to supply it from the remote in order to make changes to the protected parts of the setup. The "mock keyboard interface" for alphabetical characters is awkward to use from the remote. Gene has suggested that we therefore use a numeric passwords that can be entered from the number keys, and Gareth has a specific suggestion that is memorable. I won't repeat it in email for security reasons, but I suggest we use adopt the same numeric password for all NRAO Polycoms and discuss it at the meeting. 2) There have been some concerns from staff about whether the Polycoms can be used to eavesdrop on conversations in conference rooms without occupants being aware of this. This could be prevented by turning the Polycoms off when not in use but it is often desirable to have all Polycoms turned on some minutes before a multisite meeting. (This allows multi-way connections to the Radvision hub to be dialed centrally, which is the required connection mode for the new FX hubs). It is also sometimes useful to have all sites available for after-hours system tests. It is in fact not possible to eavesdrop on a room without the occupants being aware IF the TV's are also turned on. The TV's will not go into power save mode if there is an active call, nor will they stay in power save mode if a call comes in). So you cannot be called from another site and not be aware of this if the incoming-signal TV is turned on. The preferred and most secure mode for a video room is therefore to leave its Polycom turned on AND the TV's turned on. We could however set all Polycoms to default to mike muting when they answer incoming calls, as this would prevent accidental overhearing of snippets of remote conversations as connections are first made. (Sites would then have to actively unmute to join meetings). 3). (FOR INFO) Possible use of Polycom Global Management software for future Address Book maintenance, software updates, call logging, setting backups, and more. We believe that use of this package may be desirable as systems proliferate, so we are about to test its capabilities. From ghunt at NRAO.EDU Mon Jan 7 16:57:33 2002 From: ghunt at NRAO.EDU (Gareth Hunt) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:57:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [comm]The network Message-ID: <200201072157.QAA10015@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> Guys, We need to prepare for an RFP to replace our existing contract with AT&T for the intranet. I'd like to ensure that we are doing sensible things, so I'd like to discuss what we should plan in the way of upgrades while we are doing this. Attached is my summary (corrected by Gene) of our present connectivity as a background to this discussion. The present NRAO intranet contract has a Monthly Recurring Cost (MRC) of ~$12k (plus a couple of reimbursable charges from AUI and BIMA for other circuits). Of this, ~$2.7k is for St. Croix alone. We will almost certainly have to extend the existing contract beyond February 28, 2002 while we prepare and bid out an RFP for a replacement. Cheers, Gareth. ======================================================================== What we have: AT&T contract Other Contracts MRC ============= =============== ===== CV 2xT1 GB T1 SOC 2xT1 T1 - data to VLA $1300 T1 - voice to VLA $1300 TUC T1 BR 56k FD 56k HN 56k NL 56k OV 56k SC 56k AUI 128k PT 56k ckt from PT to VLA $250 MK 56k ckt from MKHP to MK ~$500 KP 56k ckt to DS3 ckt router $0 LA 56k ckt to Los Alamos ? ?? What we would like: CV DS3 (aka T3; 45Mbps) GB DS3 SOC DS3 TUC DS3 VLA DS3 All other sites to T1 What we must have: SOC +1xT1 - to VLA site for ALMA TI We are pursuing the possibility of a DS3 to replace the two existing circuits. The MRC is uncertain, perhaps $5k; so an increase of ~$30k/yr. Unknown at present is the cost of the needed interface equipment, router cards, etc. Voice on one channel. Note: this is independent of the intranet contract. Option 1: Upgrade AUI to T1. An increase has been approved by AUI. They ship multi-MB files between the director's office and the AUI office. When they do so over the present 128k circuit, it is unacceptably slow. With the present contract, one way to do this is: CV +1xT1 AUI +1xT1 Rough est. cost $5k for router cards, etc.; $25k/yr for additional T1 services. The cost of this is *not* borne by the NRAO directly. Option 2: Add additional T1 to GB Rough cost as per Option 1. However, we would probably share the additional T1 in CV between AUI and GB. So cost of Options 1 + 2 would be roughly $7k plus $38k/yr. Option 3: Upgrade all VLBA sites to T1. The VLBA field technicians now have a need to access many more services at the AOC. The present 56k circuit with only a 16k Committed Information Rate (CIR) is inadequate. Option 3a: Upgrade BR, FD, HN, NL, OV to T1 Add T1 in SOC Distribute PVCs over existing and new T1s Rough est. cost $20k for router cards, replacement routers, etc.; $80k/yr for additional T1 services. Option 3b: KP - negotiate locally ? $(few)k upgrade to T1 LA - ? negotiate locally ? MK - negotiate locally T1 service from Mid-level PT - negotiate locally T1 service via Western NM SC - any alternatives? Option 4: Upgrade CV, GB, SOC, TUC to DS3. Intranet RFP should ask for: Prices for each of the above options such that we can pick and choose the combination we can afford. Notes. We presently have frame relay service, which is configured similarly to the underlying ATM services. Qwest or others may configure the network using VPNs or dynamic PVCs which mean we must properly specify QoS, delay, and jitter. From ghunt at NRAO.EDU Mon Jan 7 17:21:27 2002 From: ghunt at NRAO.EDU (Gareth Hunt) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:21:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [comm]Reminder - Telecommunications meeting Message-ID: <200201072221.RAA11024@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> Guys, REMINDER There are two issues that I would like to discuss at the communication meeting next week. Since together they will certainly last more than the scheduled 1/2 hour, I have reserved the video systems for 10-12 EST, 08-10 MST. While I doubt that we will want the full two hours, it gives flexibility in case there is useful discussion. So: Telecommunications video meeting Tuesday Jan 8 at 10EST/08MST/07PST. We will open up the audio to 1-434-296-7082 Main subjects: 1. Video system security 2. Requirements for the new intranet contract Alan and I have circulated background e-mails for items 1 and 2 respectively. Cheers, Gareth. From ghunt at NRAO.EDU Mon Jan 7 19:12:53 2002 From: ghunt at NRAO.EDU (Gareth Hunt) Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:12:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [comm]Fyi: VLBA Network Bandwidth Comments Message-ID: <200201080012.TAA13788@polaris.cv.nrao.edu> Guys, Here is a note from Paul Rhodes containing comments from two VLBA site techs and my response to one of them. As I said in my response, there seems to be a clear need for higher bandwidth connection to the VLBA sites. Cheers, Gareth. ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- From: Paul Rhodes To: ghunt at NRAO.EDU Subject: VLBA Network Bandwidth Comments Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:58:12 -0700 Gareth, You asked for comments about the VLBA connectivity so I inquired to see if anyone was having any problems. Here are the results from two of the Intranet connected stations. It appears that most of the Stations have learned to "be patient" and they do not have any other experiences to compare their service at the stations. When I visit the stations I notice a severe slow down from my connection experience at the AOC. North Liberty Bandwidth For VLBA Sites: Mike Burgert 12-10-01 There are many reasons to re-evaluate the Internet connections at the VLBA stations. Most sites are connected via 10-year-old technology, and huge price/performance gains can be realized. Here at the North Liberty VLBA station, our average transfer rate is less than 3kB/sec. This is noticeably slower than a 56k dial up modem connection. I have installed (at my own expense) an ADSL modem and router/firewall to the computer I use here at the station. I am not connected to the NRAO intranet. The speed and reliability of this connection is excellent. Unfortunately, I am unable to access all of the NRAO servers due to NRAO firewalls. Transfer Rate Comparison: I did a comparison of a few things that I would consider common activities for a station technician using the Internet. The first example is using VLCj to monitor the health of the site's cryogenics, in the second example, I went to a website to research an electronic component for a NRAO project I am working on. When doing design work, it is necessary to look at datasheets for several I.C.s from several different manufactures. Most datasheets are in Adobe .pdf format, and a 20-page document is about 500KB. 1. Connect to VLCj DSL=3-4 sec. T-1=10 sec. 2. Create a graph of cryo temperatures of 10 receivers for 144 hours. DSL=4 sec. T-1=13 sec 3. Go to Maxim I.C.s Datasheet search page DSL=3 sec. T-1=20 sec 4. Download a Datasheet for an IC. 648KB DSL=10 sec. T-1=01:45 mm:ss 5. Download a Radar Image DSL= 1-2 sec. T-1=14 sec. 6. Transfer of a site camera image DSL = <20 sec. T-1 = 45 sec.to 1 min to the AOC. (Aprox. 300KB) 7. MainSaver: (better pack a lunch!) Using Citrix meta Frame on Zaphod. Mainsaver is not DSL accessible due to firewalls, Very Slow! The ADSL connection is about 10 times faster than the T-1 connection. The T-1 speeds listed are with one user on the T-1, with no site camera connected. When the site camera is operating on the T-1, the data transfer comes to a screeching halt for about 1 minute, every 5 minutes of the day 24/7! Some may argue that the VLBA sites do not "need" any more speed than they already have. As far as the functionality of the site, this is probably true. But, technology has come a long way, and ignoring the new, and better connectivity optionns my have a greater effect in the future. Pricing to upgrade to ADSL at North Liberty Basic Service: 384K downstream 128K upstream $39.95 per month Static I.P. Address $20.00 per month Hardware Requirements: Alcatel Speed Touch Modem $125.00 (on site N/C) LinkSys BEFSR41 4 port Router with Firewall and DHCP $125.00 (on site N/C) Category 5 network cable and connectors $20.00 The ADSL service here is provided by the local phone cooperative South Slope www.southslope.com I have been using their ADSL service for about 1 year now, and I have never had a single outage. The company has implemented an "ATM Cloud" (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) making ADSL extremely reliable. Should N.R.A.O. decide to give this service a try, I would be glad to assist in the hardware installation and configuration. In fact, I'd even donate my hardware if North Liberty could be used as a test site! So, the total cost to NRAO would be $59.95 per month for static I.P. with the rest of the station computers assigned IP addresses via the router. I realize not all sites have access to broadband? But, if a site has access, and it is of better performance, and the operating cost is less, WHY NOT?! P.C. to P.C. Internet phones, and video conferencing could also help cut phone costs! (Instead of paying for tech meeting conference calls?) Owens Valley Jim brown's comments to Marie Glendenning 10-3-01 Hi Marie, Yesterday you asked me to send you an email describing any difficulties I've experienced using Mainsaver. I performed the Mainsaver upgrade last March 14 on the site NT machine. Since then, it has displayed occasional episodes of severely decreased performance. At times the program would operate so slowly that I could sit back and watch it slowly constructing a page piece by piece. Using the mouse to perform simple operations was even slower and uncertain. On this end, it didn't matter that I closed out of all other running programs to free up the RAM. On the other (Citrix) end, the connection to the server shows no less than 22 running programs in the system tray each time I connect. At its worst, Mainsaver would hang and be totally unresponsive. This computer's Windows Task Manager would report it as "not responding" and I would have to use the "End Task" feature to close out and start over. That's something I never had to do before the upgrade. This could be a problem with the network, the server, or simply the number of users connected to the Mainsaver database at the same time. I understand the Mainsaver upgrade has passed its tests at another location. The performance issue is tolerable as long as I can finally use the program to get the job done. Yesterday, I couldn't even connect with the server. I tried several times, always getting the same message: "Unable to find the path to the Citrix server". I finally asked Operations whether others were having the same problem. They weren't. I don't know what was wrong with it. Today I was able to connect and use Mainsaver several times, and it now operates as well as it ever did. Thank you for your help. Jim ********************************************************************** Paul J. Rhodes Array Operations Center VLBA Field Group Leader P.O. Box O National Radio Astronomy Observatory Socorro, NM 87801 www.nrao.edu 505-835-7256 ********************************************************************** ------- end ------- ------- start of forwarded message (RFC 934 encapsulation) ------- From: Gareth Hunt To: Mike Burgert Cc: Paul Rhodes Subject: Re: VLBA Network Bandwidth Comments Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:04:42 -0500 (EST) Mike, Thanks for your useful input on the North Liberty situation. First let me correct a couple of misunderstandings. MB> There are many reasons to re-evaluate the Internet connections at the MB> VLBA stations. Most sites are connected via 10-year-old technology, and MB> huge price/performance gains can be realized. No, they are not connected by old technology. What we are limited by is the detailed configuration. The connection uses frame relay, and the underlying protocol is ATM. Only for cost savings is the NL site configured for T1 service at all. At the time of installation, the Monthly Recurring Cost (MRC) for T1 in NL was cheaper than an analog 64k/56k circuit! However, it is provisioned just to use one 56k channel of the T1 frame, and that has a Committed Information Rate (CIR) of just 16kbps. We do see bursts up to 400% of the CIR on the circuits to the VLBA antennas, so the full channel is used upon occasion. MB> Here at the North Liberty VLBA station, our average transfer rate is MB> less than 3kB/sec. Once a program link is established, the data rate should be able to burst as high as 7kB/sec. However, short transactions will be limited by the initial handshaking. MB> This is noticeably slower than a 56k dial up modem. It shouldn't be. MB> I have installed (at my own expense) an ADSL modem and MB> router/firewall to the computer I use here at the station. MB> Transfer Rate Comparison: MB> I did a comparison of a few things that I would consider common MB> activities for a station technician using the Internet. MB> The ADSL connection is about 10 times faster than the T-1 connection. For reasons given above, the improvements that you see are not a surprise. If you have 384k on the DSL link, this is 8x the NRAO connection. MB> Pricing to upgrade to ADSL at North Liberty MB> Basic Service: 384K downstream 128K upstream $39.95 per month MB> Static I.P. Address $20.00 per month Now this is impressive. We are presently paying $300 per month for the 16k/64k/T1 service. This is about twice what we were paying under the contract in 2000. When we renegotiate, we hope for a substantial reduction back to the original level, but that still probably will not be as low as your figure. MB> The ADSL service here is provided by the local phone cooperative South MB> Slope www.southslope.com I have been using their ADSL service for about MB> 1 year now, and I have never had a single outage. The company has MB> implemented an "ATM Cloud" (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) making ADSL MB> extremely reliable. As you say ATM is extremely reliable. For all of our frame relay connections, we only had to make 6-7 problem calls last year. MB> I realize not all sites have access to broadband? But, if a site has MB> access, and it is of better performance, and the operating cost is less, MB> WHY NOT?! My answer to that is centralized service. Before we had the frame relay service, we had to monitor each connection separately. It was an operational nightmare - we essentially had one person on staff who did nothing else. With a single contract, we have a single number to call 24x7 for all problems. The contractor (AT&T in this case) also deals with the local phone companies. In a few instances, AT&T has even called us and informed us of problems. I agree that you and your local ISP would be a perfect contact for NL, but what happens in the middle of the night, on weekends, or when you're on vacation? In our present case, we call a single number and the service call proceeds from there. MB> Some may argue that the VLBA sites do not "need" any more speed than MB> they already have. As far as the functionality of the site, this is MB> probably true. But, technology has come a long way, and ignoring the MB> new, and better connectivity optionns my have a greater effect in the MB> future. I think that there is a clearly demonstrated need for all of the VLBA sites to have improved access. Your response indicates how frustrating it must be for all of the VLBA site techs, even though most of them have resigned themselves to the present connection speed. Higher speed connection to all sites comes at a cost, but we intend to pursue this vigorously in our planned Request For Proposals (RFP). MB> P.C. to P.C. Internet phones, and video conferencing could also help cut MB> phone costs! (Instead of paying for tech meeting conference calls?) Actually not. The VLBA site phones are now being billed at $0.05 per minute including applicable taxes. If you have four 1 hour conferences per month, this comes only to $12. The cost of having the phone in the first place is probably $30 including taxes. However, you are on the right track. If the RFP allows us to increase the access bandwidth to the VLBA antennas, we will also look into Voice over IP (VoIP) phones for the sites. In that case, we could have local Socorro numbers at each of the sites. We can also look at PC video conferencing. Again, thanks for your constructive comments. Cheers, Gareth. ------- end ------- From rmilner at aoc.nrao.edu Tue Jan 15 01:53:05 2002 From: rmilner at aoc.nrao.edu (Ruth Milner) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:53:05 -0700 Subject: [comm]wireless standards confusion Message-ID: <3C43D1D1.BCB966BD@aoc.nrao.edu> 802.11g would be nice if they could just get it moving (analogous to the 10/100 Ethernet cards, in the sense that it interoperates at both speeds). http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D1884%2526a%253D21038,00.asp Ruth.