Rogers Canada using 220.127.116.11/8 for internal address space
owen at delong.com
Thu May 26 20:02:20 UTC 2011
On May 25, 2011, at 11:12 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On May 26, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't really allowed us to since it would be very
>> hard to produce useful bandwidth by today's standards within the bounds
>> of the spectrum we are allowed to use and the channel separations we
>> are allowed to use.
> You just need to move up in frequency a bit. My slowest ham-band link runs at 12 Mbps and my fastest at over 100 Mbps.
Yeah, for a modern household LAN, you're at about 1/3rd my minimum bandwidth and 1/10th my current maximum.
For wide area purposes, you're at about 1/100th of the smallest circuits we're running in the modern backbone.
> Good reminder that I should renumber the IPv4 portion of that network to somewhere in 18.104.22.168/8 however.
Yeah, not a bad idea. Wonder if we can get a /32 for AMPR from IETF since it would be prohibitively expensive to
get it from an RIR.
More information about the NANOG