From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AB753CB4B for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id v90so331747qte.12 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:03:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=hN9sRQHyxhCMtiBhNKu3HuMbI0xXYtfVArpEJkOqJbs=; b=n/EZQENuwtC1RODUM60ZMqnvb415QwxWZiBMSg9c3b1LzEuMOauYeh00Op6RuHcq48 F330SE2/ON7HesGymqIjtceqHWx2fvDl7/hA+TcPJE8fmYnuUoBxJbHLDOPKMxrkIepM EgkOzLKzQoKHwF8DDOP/sq/ZIlaDgtpxZUtcoQ3yABk9zFV1uNUh3Z788me48iea/k4O Lm42oVvRU2i0j7a49m4d5D1ScSlNR06/EkVmBwPJva20rfhgoUPgNgrEFx3B/sB4GV8v UNpRa+YpONPknonvUpACCd9IAEmQxJE4OTGxPtxduWOwDcKnDtZCJ4HNtarnITewJgnA psdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hN9sRQHyxhCMtiBhNKu3HuMbI0xXYtfVArpEJkOqJbs=; b=HdydUQFo2m4gREQx2kn0Y8QNefXcY4e44u5hM9ZeO9xwjhPLPamcuzRJPGn5PK2+IA psP2QnK/pLwmHIQNBbNld3bhejHlZWb7wBPx354xc6VEMv9WYpltA9GyqoTdV5LrNkaY NiqARI4TtQ6CN1OWI+9WWbcXBVxmeOP0b8tFIz0Jl1ou1QNAwhrVPx7Ur9167/iSrQF2 IKXhyQDC7U+guCWAvI4+dd62xMsEDTMOXMOYfeZ68PiliXoRMJBmRnE9rgPALL9cQnos 02vumv1GPNoCSwN80yt5o7ui3CgxHrTkOV/H5INdRjVBN8JNul+b5kLqUc0ECODw8b8g LY3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HKUwsW5kP8C+KJ6YyULJ2AU73cHxN7w08nF67Uo6Fn1/92Nt8H FtrEnpbKAKOkIZikZFJ6mXHDaJuHvcZDYOPi14A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsd3PA/ClKQ9FBfTP0rGCvkDhZw5NEzn5LR8oSC1dEmWOU6VC96JWxq2pBWXUgLbNBTl2utis43kfYyQNxv8Bw= X-Received: by 10.237.44.225 with SMTP id g88mr2147667qtd.339.1520960622347; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:03:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gettysjim@gmail.com Received: by 10.12.135.141 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:03:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1520875105.31683592@apps.rackspace.com> <1520881804.31539998@apps.rackspace.com> From: Jim Gettys Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:03:41 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: njwXWqnAQF6ikii7MrVZvyMBUwE Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Christopher Robin , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1256e29cce7a05674e3de6" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 17:03:43 -0000 --94eb2c1256e29cce7a05674e3de6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > A couple things on the spacebee. > > 0) I LOVE the concept. Of late (due to my boat) I'd been digging into > the evolution of AIS repeaters, and that insanely primitive protocol, > and the hacks to make that scale over two channels of VHF up into > orbit. > > 1) The costs of launching cubesats has dropped dramatically. I believe > this particular launch cost about $.5m per 1u device. (I was paying > attention due to my interest in Planetary Resources' work. Their 6u > arkyd-3 spacecraft was in this payload and is functioning nominally.) > > Spacebee - Having a payload 1/4th the size of a cubesat *work* and be > useable! is a major advance. And is 1/4th the space junk. Worrying > about something smaller than baseball hitting anything strikes me as > control freakery at the FCC. > =E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B > > =E2=80=8BSomething that size, hitting at thousands of miles/hour, will dest= roy what it hits. Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter. > 2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate > radar reflectivity, according to their standards, the article states: > > "Websites dedicated to tracking operational satellites show the > SpaceBees in orbits virtually identical to those specified in Swarm=E2=80= =99s > application." Ground stations can only get better. > > 3) most (all?) 1u spacecraft have no maneuvering capability and half > of cubesats tend to fail quickly, so there will be an increasing > amount of space junk in low orbits regardless. But there's nothing to > explode on board ('cept maybe a battery?), and probably the biggest > source of space junk has been explosions. Yes, there have been > collisions, but the smaller the device, the smaller the chance of > collision. > =E2=80=8BObjects in low earth orbits don't last very long; they decay quick= ly due to drag. So low earth orbit just doesn't have much to hit in the first place, and a satellite there doesn't live very long either. Higher orbits are much more problematic. > 4) Flat out bypassing a staid and boring agency, getting the thing > launched, and proving the concept is just so american! but unless the > regulations are reformed I could certainly see more and more sats > created outside the USA. ITAR is a real PITA, and now testing, > development, and regulation now dominate over launch costs. > =E2=80=8BRead the wikipedia article, and the analysis of the Chinese collis= ion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision The Kesseler syndrome is a real problem.=E2=80=8B > > 5) I'd misread the article, and interpreted part of the denial based > on some longstanding issues they've had with not allowing spread > spectrum radio in orbit. > > I'd love to see an independent, fast-moving, external and > international group just start ignoring the FCC on certain matters, or > acting in concert to help push small sats forward, faster. > =E2=80=8BAgain, there are limitations on how small an object they can track= via radar. - Jim=E2=80=8B > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys wrote: > > The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using current > radar > > technology. They literally move satellites out of the way > > if there is some possibility of collision. If there is a collision, th= en > > you get lots of debris, that just makes the debris > > problem worse. > > > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision > > > > Certain orbits are much more of an issue than others; for example, low > earth > > orbits decay quickly enough that there is little issue, as the satellit= es > > will > > reenter quickly enough that there is unlikely to be a problem. Other > orbits > > are seldom used, so there isn't much to run into. > > > > The satellite's vendor proposed using on-board GPS to send its location= . > > > > The problem is that if the satellite fails, they would get no > information. > > The FCC was unhappy with that. Launching without solving that > > objection is a real "no-no".a > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Robin > wrote: > >> > >> Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it has global launch control, b= ut > >> I've actually done some academic reading on space debris and usable > orbits. > >> The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the > growth of > >> space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. Someone "going > rogue" > >> could have large scale impacts. This is different than flying planes o= r > >> setting up a new radio tower without following the "rules of the road"= . > >> Space also has the additional factors that: > >> > >> 1) there is currently no way (realistic) to clean up after an event in > >> space > >> 2) any collision events in space tend to cascade into a much larger > >> problem > >> > >> There are some awesome technologies on the horizon, and I want to see > them > >> come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn't > currently > >> feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we really need > an > >> independent, international organization that will verify that these > small > >> startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I'd rathe= r > be > >> stuck with sub-par terrestrial signals than increasing risk to GPS & > weather > >> imaging. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com < > dpreed@deepplum.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets would > show > >>> weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were placed > nearby (or > >>> even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort and > rulemaking > >>> of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting those TV sets, becau= se > >>> someone's grandmother somewhere might still own one. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind of idea that mad= e > it > >>> next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Only a ver= y > key > >>> person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a friend) was > able to > >>> enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwise, the > idea > >>> that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed to > "block" new > >>> technologies takes over. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbital space > in > >>> a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" available. Which is why I > >>> suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyone's interest and > >>> privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasible. As > >>> satellites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverable, as > they > >>> follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance becomes > feasible, > >>> *especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy networkin= g > >>> protocols*. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky if > someone > >>> accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The > Internet will > >>> be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is something no one with > "nothing > >>> to hide" needs to use. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, etc. Not > just > >>> someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media articles" as > so many > >>> do. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatorial orbi= t* > >>> is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densely > occupied at > >>> all. > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: "Christopher Robin" > >>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm > >>> To: "dpreed@deepplum.com" > >>> Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee > >>> > >>> The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much smaller. > One > >>> rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could endanger > several > >>> other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redundancy t= o > >>> handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could ruin the > >>> usability of a much larger section of space. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable and highly > >>>> corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too. Space is > actually > >>>> quite big. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: "Jim Gettys" > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm > >>>> To: "Dave Taht" > >>>> Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee > >>>> > >>>> I do believe that the international space treaties require our > >>>> government to control all launches. > >>>> Launching satellites without permission is a big no-no. > >>>> Note that according to the article, it is collision risk, rather tha= n > >>>> radio radiation, that is the issue here. > >>>> Jim > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "get" spread spectrum > >>>>> radio) just discovered it doesn't have authority over the airwaves = of > >>>>> the whole planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/ > satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> > >>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht > >>>>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC > >>>>> http://www.teklibre.com > >>>>> Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > >>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > >>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >>>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list > >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > > > -- > > Dave T=C3=A4ht > CEO, TekLibre, LLC > http://www.teklibre.com > Tel: 1-669-226-2619 > --94eb2c1256e29cce7a05674e3de6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Ma= r 13, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wr= ote:
A couple things o= n the spacebee.

0) I LOVE the concept. Of late (due to my boat) I'd been digging into the evolution of AIS repeaters, and that insanely primitive protocol,
and the hacks to make that scale over two channels of VHF up into
orbit.

1) The costs of launching cubesats has dropped dramatically. I believe
this particular launch cost about $.5m per 1u device. (I was paying
attention due to my interest in Planetary Resources' work. Their 6u
arkyd-3 spacecraft was in this payload and is functioning nominally.)

Spacebee - Having a payload 1/4th the size of a cubesat *work* and be
useable! is a major advance. And is 1/4th the space junk. Worrying
about something smaller than baseball hitting anything strikes me as
control freakery at the FCC.
=E2=80=8B=E2=80=8B


=E2=80=8BSomethi= ng that size, hitting at thousands of miles/hour, will destroy what it hits= .

Size, until the object = gets really small, really doesn't matter.



2) Although the FCC denied the application based on having inadaquate
radar reflectivity, according to their standards, the article states:

"Websites dedicated to tracking operational satellites show the
SpaceBees in orbits virtually identical to those specified in Swarm=E2=80= =99s
application." Ground stations can only get better.

3) most (all?) 1u spacecraft have no maneuvering capability and half
of cubesats tend to fail quickly, so there will be an increasing
amount of space junk in low orbits regardless. But there's nothing to explode on board ('cept maybe a battery?), and probably the biggest
source of space junk has been explosions. Yes, there have been
collisions, but the smaller the device, the smaller the chance of
collision.

=E2=80=8BObjects in low earth orbits don't last v= ery long; they decay quickly
due to drag.

So low earth orbit just doesn't have much to hit in the first place, = and
a satellite= there doesn't live very long either.

Higher orbits are much more problematic.


4) Flat out bypassing a staid and boring agency, getting the thing
launched, and proving the concept is just so american! but unless the
regulations are reformed I could certainly see more and more sats
created outside the USA. ITAR is a real PITA, and now testing,
development, and regulation now dominate over launch costs.

=E2= =80=8BRead the wikipedia article, and the analysis of the Chinese collision= .

The Kesseler syndrome is a real problem.=E2=80=8B

5) I'd misread the article, and interpreted part of the denial based on some longstanding issues they've had with not allowing spread
spectrum radio in orbit.

I'd love to see an independent, fast-moving, external and
international group just start ignoring the FCC on certain matters, or
acting in concert to help push small sats forward, faster.
=

=E2= =80=8BAgain, there are limitations on how small an object they can track vi= a radar.
=C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0- Jim=E2=80=8B



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> wrote:
> The issue is that they can't track satellites that small using cur= rent radar
> technology.=C2=A0 They literally move satellites out of the way
> if there is some possibility of collision.=C2=A0 If there is a collisi= on, then
> you get lots of debris, that just makes the debris
> problem worse.
>
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2= 009_satellite_collision
>
> Certain orbits are much more of an issue than others; for example, low= earth
> orbits decay quickly enough that there is little issue, as the satelli= tes
> will
> reenter quickly enough that there is unlikely to be a problem.=C2=A0 O= ther orbits
> are seldom used, so there isn't much to run into.
>
> The satellite's vendor proposed using on-board GPS to send its loc= ation.
>
> The problem is that if the satellite fails, they would get no informat= ion.
> The FCC was unhappy with that.=C2=A0 Launching without solving that > objection is a real "no-no".a
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Robin <pheoni@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Now I'm not defending the FCC thinking it has global launch co= ntrol, but
>> I've actually done some academic reading on space debris and u= sable orbits.
>> The experts in the field have shown concern for how to handle the = growth of
>> space traffic for decades, and not just in GEO space. Someone &quo= t;going rogue"
>> could have large scale impacts. This is different than flying plan= es or
>> setting up a new radio tower without following the "rules of = the road".
>> Space also has the additional factors that:
>>
>> 1) there is currently no way (realistic) to clean up after an even= t in
>> space
>> 2) any collision events in space tend to cascade into a much large= r
>> problem
>>
>> There are some awesome technologies on the horizon, and I want to = see them
>> come about. But unlike terrestrial radio, fixing a mistake isn'= ;t currently
>> feasible for small scale companies. Until that changes, we really = need an
>> independent, international organization that will verify that thes= e small
>> startups didn't miss something in their planning. Personally I= 'd rather be
>> stuck with sub-par terrestrial signals than increasing risk to GPS= & weather
>> imaging.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com <dp= reed@deepplum.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> To me that is analogous to the idea that since ancient TV sets= would show
>>> weird ghosts when various kinds of radio transmitters were pla= ced nearby (or
>>> even be disturbed by power-line noise) that the entire effort = and rulemaking
>>> of the FCC should be forever aimed at protecting those TV sets= , because
>>> someone's grandmother somewhere might still own one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a technologically backwards idea. It's the kind o= f idea that made it
>>> next to impossible to legalize WiFi [I know, I was there]. Onl= y a very key
>>> person (named M. Marcus, now retired from FCC OET, and a frien= d) was able to
>>> enable the use of WiFi technologies in the ISM bands. Otherwis= e, the idea
>>> that all current poorly scalable systems ought to be allowed t= o "block" new
>>> technologies takes over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All I can say is that if you really think about sharing orbita= l space in
>>> a scalable way, there is a lot more "space" availabl= e. Which is why I
>>> suggested "rules of the road" that operate in everyo= ne's interest and
>>> privilege no one use over another are almost certainly feasibl= e. As
>>> satellites get more capable (smaller, lighter, more maneuverab= le, as they
>>> follow the equivalent of Moore's Law for space) avoidance = becomes feasible,
>>> *especially if all satellites can coordinate via low energy ne= tworking
>>> protocols*.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I know all the scare stories. Planes will fall out of the sky = if someone
>>> accidentally uses a WiFi device or cellphone on airplanes. The= Internet will
>>> be inhabited only by criminals. Encryption is something no one= with "nothing
>>> to hide" needs to use.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please. Think harder. Become an expert on space technology, et= c. Not just
>>> someone who "knowledgably repeats lines from news media a= rticles" as so many
>>> do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is that while it may be that *geosynchronous equatori= al orbit*
>>> is very tightly occupied, most MEO and LEO space is not densel= y occupied at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: "Christopher Robin" <pheoni@gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:34pm
>>> To: "dpreed@deeppl= um.com" <dpreed@deepplum= .com>
>>> Cc: cer= owrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee
>>>
>>> The portion of space with usable orbital paths is much, much s= maller. One
>>> rogue rocket with a poor/flawed understanding of that could en= danger several
>>> other satellites. Many systems already in orbit lack the redun= dancy to
>>> handle a major collision. And any collision in orbit could rui= n the
>>> usability of a much larger section of space.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:18 PM, dpreed@deepplum.com
>>> <dpreed@deepplum.com= > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, that may be the case, but it's a non-scalable an= d highly
>>>> corruptible system. IMO it's probably unnecesary, too.= Space is actually
>>>> quite big.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "Jim Gettys" <jg@freedesktop.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:26pm
>>>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee
>>>>
>>>> I do believe that the international space treaties require= our
>>>> government to control all launches.
>>>> Launching satellites without permission is a big no-no. >>>> Note that according to the article, it is collision risk, = rather than
>>>> radio radiation, that is the issue here.
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is awesome. The FCC (whic still doesn't "= ;get" spread spectrum
>>>>> radio) just discovered it doesn't have authority o= ver the airwaves of
>>>>> the whole planet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-tal= k/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-= rogue-satellites
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht
>>>>> CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>>>>> http://www.teklibre.com
>>>>> Tel: 1-669-226-2619
>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.n= et/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>>>> Cer= owrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/<= wbr>listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-dev= el@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/list= info/cerowrt-devel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@l= ists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listin= fo/cerowrt-devel
>



--

Dave T=C3=A4ht
CEO, TekLibre, LLC
ht= tp://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-669-226-2619

--94eb2c1256e29cce7a05674e3de6--