[AusNOG] (no subject)

[Paul Wilkins]

You'll need a carrier license if your pigeons are crossing a property line.

(I am not a lawyer. This is not expert legal opinion)

Paul Wilkins

On 4 September 2015 at 09:19, Dylan Chidgey <
dylan.chidgey at cirruscomms.com.au> wrote:

> Pigeons FTW
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8248056.stm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mark
> Smith
> Sent: Thursday, 3 September 2015 5:33 PM
> To: Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
> Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] (no subject)
>
> On 3 September 2015 at 17:17, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
> wrote:
> > If I use hungry eagles instead, will I be:
> > (a) non-compliant with the RFC
> > (b) offering a lower-latency service
> > (c) subject to ACCC investigation when other's links mysteriously fail
> > (d) all of the above
> >
>
> So if pigeon loss is too high, it might be necessary to resort to a more
> reliable link layer, taking into account BCP 89/RFC 3819's advice ("Advice
> for Internet Subnetwork Designers"),
>
> "Error recovery in the subnetwork is therefore
>    justifiable only to the extent that it can enhance overall
>    performance.  It is important to recognize that a subnetwork can go
>    too far in attempting to provide error recovery services in the
>    Internet environment.  Subnet reliability should be "lightweight",
>    i.e., it only has to be "good enough", *not* perfect."
>
> and resort to a tank link-layer.
>
> RFC 1217, "Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)"
>
> "  This system uses a highly redundant optical communication technique
>    to achieve ultra-low, ultra-robust transmission.  The basic unit is
>    the M1A1 tank.  Each tank is labelled with the number 0 or 1 painted
>    four feet high on the tank turret in yellow, day-glo luminescent
>    paint."
>
>
> >
> > On 3/09/2015 4:32 PM, Jim Woodward wrote:
> >
> > It's all good in theory until your network delivery team calls in with
> > bird flu :)
> >
> > On 3/09/2015 3:20 PM, Purdon, Bob wrote:
> >
> >> So I reckon you'd be on solid ground if you used RFC1149.
> >
> > I recall that PIPE Networks did a trial of RFC1149 some time ago from
> > the
> > 127 Creek St office.  Wasn't terribly successful :-)
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhjn8kbFe74
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150904/261879c9/attachment.html>