Mailing List Archive

100% the Litter Robot is amazing. ( Except for my older cat, she's pushing
19, had to build a ramp for her. )

But I also agree there are limits to what needs IoTing. I don't live in a
house large enough that I can't go see if the box needs cleaning within
about 20s. I also sure as hell don't need a notification on my phone that
one of them just made a deposit.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:05 AM Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:

> On 8/31/21 20:18, J. Hellenthal wrote:
> > Also don't get a smart litterbox... ;-)
> >
> > Yeah that's a thing and connects to the local Wi-Fi. Kinda want to DMZ
> that mutha and wait for a script kiddie to turn one of my cats upside
> down...
> >
> > dubs litter-robot.com
>
> I have one, the cat loves it and it's very easy to clean. No need to
> enable the wi-fi. Front panel indicators are more than sufficient.
> "Wi-fi enabled" on things that don't need wi-fi is a marketing gimmick
> that's way over-used.
>
> Rule 37.024 subsection 7: Cats are always on-topic.
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - jay@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>

> But I also agree there are limits to what needs IoTing. I don't live in a
> house large enough that I can't go see if the box needs cleaning within
> about 20s. I also sure as hell don't need a notification on my phone that
> one of them just made a deposit.

*ding!* 1 New Notification: "clean my filth, human servant."

My wife has been campaigning for one for about 2 months now. I'm unsure how it'll do with 4 of varying age from 1 to 16 though. Still tempting.

John C. Lyden
Manager of Network Infrastructure
Infrastructure Services, Division of Information Resources & Technology
Rowan University

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 17:51 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/31/21 5:13 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> On 8/31/21 16:32, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote:
>>
>>> Fun part being that it is hard to get a Dumb TV... though that is primarily simply because of all the tracking non-sense in them that makes them 'cheaper'... (still wonder how well that tracking stuff complies with GDPR, I am thinking it does not ... Schrems anyone? :) )
>>
>> Just get a "smart" TV, don't connect it to the Internet, and use its HDMI ports for your cable box, Apple TV, etc. and/or antenna input for local off-air reception.
>>
>
> Yeah, until TV manufacturers actually start incorporating, oh say, Google tv (which is just a form of Android) they are always going to be inferior. Having the TV just be a monitor is a feature, not a bug. It's a lot cheaper to upgrade a $50 hdmi based dongle than the whole TV, doubly so since manufacturers have a bad reputation for not supporting upgrades beyond the sell date. I have no idea whether any of the external ones support v6 though.

Apple TV supports IPv6, but does not allow the user to set a static IPv6 address and it uses rotating privacy addresses, so the security implications are “interesting”. OTOH, it does appear to support DHCPv6 and if you set M+O, it looks like you can collect the DUID and give it a fixed DHCP address.

Android and by extension Google’s HDMI dongles/devices have some IPv6 support, but of course don’t work with DHCPv6 because of Lorenzo’s religious problems.

> One thing that might be nice is for routers to internally number using v6 in preference to v4 and NAT that (if needed). Then you can easily tell what is still a laggard. My wifi cams might be poorly supported, but they don't need to interoperate with much on the Internet.

I actually have had an idea for a long time of producing a router-on-a-stick kind of device which would be a small linux SBC with two ethernet ports and some LEDs.

The OS would go on a micro-SD card and it would literally be a single-device NAT64 setup so that the IPv4-only device on the downstream side could work with the IPv6-only LAN (which might further have a NAT64 gateway to deal with the IPv4-only legacy portions of the world outside.

Ideally, the upstream ethernet port would be PoE to power the device (and the device would be sold with a small, cheap PoE injector in case needed).

> Mike, Google TV has been pretty nice since the Amazon feud finally ended though I hate that the protocol is still pretty proprietary

To the best of my knowledge, the FireTV and its ilk still can’t spell IPv6.

Owen

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>
> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.

Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I think still within range.

Owen

All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but there
are providers still not on board.
They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...

Nimrod

Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
was tiring on the eyes.

Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
much?

Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.

On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
> >
> > Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>
> Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I think still within range.
>
> Owen
>

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but
> there are providers still not on board.
> They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
>
This is about inside your premise before any NAT's enter the picture.
What would be nice is if home routers offered up v6 as the default way
to number and v6 tunnels past ISP's that don't have v6. Home routers
could make that all rather seamless where users wouldn't need to know
that was happening. It's really a pity that home routers are a race to
the bottom where everything else with networking is expected to evolve
over time.

Mike

On 9/1/21 11:25 AM, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.
>
> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?

It's been a while but there was a setting for mine that I had to futz
with so that didn't happen. You're right that you should definitely check.

Mike

Televisions generally have a way smaller pixel density than a computer
monitor. It is very noticeable.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:27 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.
>
> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?
>
> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.
>
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > >> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K
> monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended
> up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p,
> but I digress).
> > >
> > > Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39"
> model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size
> and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it).
> What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed
> to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors
> (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that
> 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too
> small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
> >
> > Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are
> relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I
> think still within range.
> >
> > Owen
> >
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>

IPv6 tunnels work great for network geeks, but rather poorly for home users with streaming, gaming etc...It's not necessarily the performance, it's either the geolocation, latency, or the very issue that started this thread - VPN banning.

Remember, the streaming services couldn't care less about geolocation or VPN banning, it's the contractual obligations with the content providers. The content providers care about vpn banning because it gets around geolocation, which interferes with their business models (different release schedules to different regions, etc..)

Been there, done that...Stuck on Fios with no IPv6. Ran into rather "interesting" problems with various streaming services with IPv6 configured.


Matthew Huff | Director of Technical Operations | OTA Management LLC

Office: 914-460-4039
mhuff@ox.com | www.ox.com
...........................................................................................................................................

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 2:26 PM
To: Nimrod Levy <nimrodl@gmail.com>; Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)


On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but
> there are providers still not on board.
> They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
>
This is about inside your premise before any NAT's enter the picture.
What would be nice is if home routers offered up v6 as the default way
to number and v6 tunnels past ISP's that don't have v6. Home routers
could make that all rather seamless where users wouldn't need to know
that was happening. It's really a pity that home routers are a race to
the bottom where everything else with networking is expected to evolve
over time.

Mike

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:26 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 9/1/21 10:59 AM, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> > All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but
> > there are providers still not on board.
> > They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
> >
> This is about inside your premise before any NAT's enter the picture.
> What would be nice is if home routers offered up v6 as the default way
> to number and v6 tunnels past ISP's that don't have v6. Home routers
> could make that all rather seamless where users wouldn't need to know
> that was happening. It's really a pity that home routers are a race to
> the bottom where everything else with networking is expected to evolve
> over time.
>

I can't disagree about the quality of CPE, but I don't think that adding
tunnels by default is appropriate. We tried that with 6to4 and while that
worked, it didn't work well. Where would the far end of the tunnel
terminate? Who wants to build and manage that infrastructure? I'd rather
have the ISPs focus on deploying native IPv6 connectivity or at the very
worst, on-net 6rd. But I can tell you from experience that 6rd will only
take you so far before you figure out that you really needed native in the
first place.

Even more so, tunnels don't solve the problem that started this thread in
the first place. Netfilx (and probably others) consider IPv6 tunnel brokers
to be VPN providers and deny those connections. I stopped using a tunnel at
home for that very reason.

I think it's 100% appropriate for a CPE to not offer IPv6 on the inside
interfaces if it doesn't have a v6 upstream connection. What would the
point be?


> Mike
>

On 9/1/21 11:49 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> IPv6 tunnels work great for network geeks, but rather poorly for home users with streaming, gaming etc...It's not necessarily the performance, it's either the geolocation, latency, or the very issue that started this thread - VPN banning.
>
> Remember, the streaming services couldn't care less about geolocation or VPN banning, it's the contractual obligations with the content providers. The content providers care about vpn banning because it gets around geolocation, which interferes with their business models (different release schedules to different regions, etc..)
>
> Been there, done that...Stuck on Fios with no IPv6. Ran into rather "interesting" problems with various streaming services with IPv6 configured.
>
Well, my point is that a properly pre-configured home router could
probably make this plug and play. Openwrt can probably do what I'm
thinking. Streaming should not be a problem but gaming/latency
definitely is.

I frankly don't understand why these home router vendors don't just
adopt Openwrt and the like instead of maintaining their own code. They
are extremely cost sensitive so you'd think that it would be a big win
(yes, I know some do but, say, Linksys doesn't and their software is
complete shit and I know this first hand). Why can't I have router
distos just like Linux distos where somebody with clue does the work to
customize distos with various features. My ISP could then just point at
the ones they like too. It's really sad that home routers are completely
treated like black boxes where people and their devices have no problem
customizing them to their taste. My suspicion is this all a
self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mike

Where possible vote with your dollars by selecting providers that do.

Where there are multiple providers and none support v6, make it clear to all that the first one to support
v6 will get your business and that subsequently, the best v6 support will win.

Where there are not multiple providers, lobby your regulators to eliminate vertical integration (stop allowing
those that own the natural monopoly in layer 1 to leverage that into a monopoly over higher layer services).

Owen


> On Sep 1, 2021, at 10:59 , Nimrod Levy <nimrodl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All this chatter about IPv6 support on devices is fun and all, but there are providers still not on board.
> They operate in my neighborhood and they know who they are...
>
> Nimrod
>
>

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 11:25 , bzs@theworld.com wrote:
>
>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.

That was definitely true of 480 TVs and older 1080p units, but modern sets
are almost designed to be monitors first and everything else second.

> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?

There are some tradeoffs… For example, sitting normal computer monitor
distance from a 44” 4K screen, you can damn near see the individual pixels
and that can make text look fuzzy, especially if your GPU or OS are stupid
enough to use a technique called anti-aliasing on text (which is the most
probable source of the fuzziness in your originally quoted complaint).

Older TVs would try to smooth some aspects of the analog signal they were
using through anti-aliasing pixels that occurred on the edge of a change in
the color signal to “smooth” the image. (The extent of this action was what
was controlled by the “Sharpness” knob back in the analog days).

Turning off this capability (Sharpness to the left most or lowest setting) would
often improve things greatly.

> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.

Possible, but unlikely.

Owen

>
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>>>
>>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>>
>> Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I think still within range.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Some TVs may also try to rescale the inputs, or enhance/process the image
in ways that can improve perceived video quality. Things like increasing
frame rates of sources that are lower frame rates (thus the 120 Hz and 240
Hz TVs that attempt to make 24, 30, and 60 FPS sources look better), or
deinterlacing 1080i ATSC sources.

Some of this image processing may not work well in specific monitor use
cases.

I have had generally good results with using a TV as an HTPC monitor. Only
issues I've run into over the years are

1.) a 1080p Sony TV with a VGA input that could not handle 1920x1080 (using
HDMI worked)
and
2.) a 720p Toshiba that could not show the BIOS screen of the attached
computer (I think this was either an unsupported resolution issue, or a
timing issue where the TV couldn't wake up fast enough from the 'signal
lost' message to display a brand new signal input).

YMMV.


VPNs: there is a race going on between streaming services who want to block
VPNs, and VPN services who have customers who want to be able to watch
streams (whether in or out of their regions). Some VPN customers buy VPN
services because they do not trust their ISP to not do stuff like selling
browsing histories.

I think ISPs are getting caught in the middle, maybe when they have IP
ranges near or in the middle of ranges that are suspected by IP reputation
companies as being used by VPN services. I'd guess the problem is more
likely to affect smaller ISPs, and not the
Comcast/Cox/Charter/Spectrum/CenturyLinks of the world. There are also
'distributed VPN' services that let people share their connections with
others.

We are also seeing fragmentation in the cable/streaming service space,
similar to what happened in the cable/Dish Network/DirecTV wars. Add it all
up, some customers may throw up their hands in annoyance at the various
platforms and then revert to other means of obtaining the content they seek.



On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 15:13 Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2021, at 11:25 , bzs@theworld.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> > people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> > the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> > that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> > was tiring on the eyes.
>
> That was definitely true of 480 TVs and older 1080p units, but modern sets
> are almost designed to be monitors first and everything else second.
>
> > Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> > text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> > some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> > this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> > much?
>
> There are some tradeoffs… For example, sitting normal computer monitor
> distance from a 44” 4K screen, you can damn near see the individual pixels
> and that can make text look fuzzy, especially if your GPU or OS are stupid
> enough to use a technique called anti-aliasing on text (which is the most
> probable source of the fuzziness in your originally quoted complaint).
>
> Older TVs would try to smooth some aspects of the analog signal they were
> using through anti-aliasing pixels that occurred on the edge of a change in
> the color signal to “smooth” the image. (The extent of this action was what
> was controlled by the “Sharpness” knob back in the analog days).
>
> Turning off this capability (Sharpness to the left most or lowest setting)
> would
> often improve things greatly.
>
> > Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> > manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.
>
> Possible, but unlikely.
>
> Owen
>
> >
> > On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG)
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >>>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K
> monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended
> up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p,
> but I digress).
> >>>
> >>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39"
> model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size
> and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it).
> What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed
> to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors
> (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that
> 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too
> small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
> >>
> >> Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are
> relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I
> think still within range.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >
> > --
> > -Barry Shein
> >
> > Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>
>
>

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:

>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it.


And everytime I see an email thread about the difference or not between
monitors and TVs I'm taken over by an all consuming rage...
I have a **monitor**.... I purchased it from Dell, and it clearly said
"monitor" on the box, it identifies itself somewhere display settings as a
"monitor", and even says "monitor" in small letters somewhere on the
back.... It's a MONITOR dagnabit... but, for some unfathomable reason it
has some tiny little speakers in it, and every time I connect it via HDMI
to my Mac laptop, the machine decides to completely ignore the fact that
I've told it that I want to use a specific sound output, and starts playing
all audio though the monitors speakers. Oh, and because this is HDMI, and
Apple apparently follows the HDMI spec, the Mac volume controls won't work
("This device has no audio level control" or something...) and I have to go
scrummaging around in some horrendous on-screen monitor menu to make it
less obnoxiously loud...

All attempts to get this less stupid result in Apple pointing at the HDMI
spec and saying that if a device advertises audio capabilites they list it
as an output device, and Dell pointing out that they simply advirtise the
fact that the device has a speaker, and, well, shrug, not thier issue if
things try and use it.

There used to be a good webpage that had some instructions along the lines
of:
Step 1:
Open /System/Library/Extensions/AMDRadeonX6000HWServices.kext/Contents/PlugIns/AMDRadeonX6300HWLibs.kext
in a hex editor
Step 2: Change the byte at offset 931 to 0xED, offset 12323 to 0xFD, offset
94 to 0x00 and offset 42 to 0x03.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: The HDMI capabilities parser no longer understands the audio
capability message, and so the Mac will never try to use HDMI audio ever
again.... well, until you upgrade... oh, this is perfectly safe, trust us,
nothing could possibly go wrong here...

Unfortunately this was only for a specific version of a specific kext on a
specific model of Macbook, but it did work...

All I want is to be able to reliably inform my computer that the thingie on
my desk is "just" a monitor and not a TV/HiFi system/similar... is that too
much to ask!?!!?!!?!??!! <sob>

(Actually, this used to annoy me enough that I purchased one of bunnie
Huang's NeTV (https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=17) devices, which
allows taking in HDMI, munging it and sending it out (e.g to do text
overlays). My plan was to repurpose it as a straight data passthrough, but
overriding the HDMI profile info, but as with most of these sorts of
projects I got sidetracked into playing with the build environment instead,
and now the hardware is buried under a pile of other abandoned projects
somewhere on my workbench)

Thank you all, I feel much better now...
W



> I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.
>
> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?
>
> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.
>
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > >> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K
> monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended
> up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p,
> but I digress).
> > >
> > > Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39"
> model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size
> and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it).
> What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed
> to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors
> (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that
> 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too
> small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
> >
> > Costco stocks several 44” 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are
> relatively cheap. It’s a little larger than your 40” goldilocks, but I
> think still within range.
> >
> > Owen
> >
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
>


--
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 15:17 , Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM <bzs@theworld.com <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:
>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it.
>
> And everytime I see an email thread about the difference or not between monitors and TVs I'm taken over by an all consuming rage...
> I have a **monitor**.... I purchased it from Dell, and it clearly said "monitor" on the box, it identifies itself somewhere display settings as a "monitor", and even says "monitor" in small letters somewhere on the back.... It's a MONITOR dagnabit... but, for some unfathomable reason it has some tiny little speakers in it, and every time I connect it via HDMI to my Mac laptop, the machine decides to completely ignore the fact that I've told it that I want to use a specific sound output, and starts playing all audio though the monitors speakers. Oh, and because this is HDMI, and Apple apparently follows the HDMI spec, the Mac volume controls won't work ("This device has no audio level control" or something...) and I have to go scrummaging around in some horrendous on-screen monitor menu to make it less obnoxiously loud...

Yes, it’s not clear why Apple doesn’t implement more of the HDMI spec and send it CEC commands to control the volume when it’s connected to an HDMI device with sound output.

Interestingly, my Apple TV does implement that part of the spec and my Amp that it is connected to dutifully obeys and everything works as expected… Display on the monitor (TV if you prefer), sound from the 7.1 speakers through the amp as expected, and control of the playback through the Apple TV all from the single elegant Apple TV Remote. So clearly, Apple has mastered the skills necessary to make this possible. Why they don’t bring them to MacOS yet remains a mystery to me.

> All attempts to get this less stupid result in Apple pointing at the HDMI spec and saying that if a device advertises audio capabilites they list it as an output device, and Dell pointing out that they simply advirtise the fact that the device has a speaker, and, well, shrug, not thier issue if things try and use it.

Listing it as an output device doesn’t require them to auto switch to that output device upon connection… You might want to point out to Apple that an ability to override this less than desirable behavior would be sufficient to cure your issue without violating the HDMI spec.

It pains me to say this, but Dell is right. The HDMI spec doesn’t allow for them to have a (useful) implementation of a speaker (or speakers) in an HDMI monitor that can some how say “I have a speaker, but don’t use it unless the user specifically tells you to.”. OTOH, Dell could (and I’ve seen monitors and even televisions that do) add a user control to “Disable HDMI audio negotiations” or something to that effect.

> There used to be a good webpage that had some instructions along the lines of:
> Step 1: Open /System/Library/Extensions/AMDRadeonX6000HWServices.kext/Contents/PlugIns/AMDRadeonX6300HWLibs.kext in a hex editor
> Step 2: Change the byte at offset 931 to 0xED, offset 12323 to 0xFD, offset 94 to 0x00 and offset 42 to 0x03.
> Step 3: ???
> Step 4: The HDMI capabilities parser no longer understands the audio capability message, and so the Mac will never try to use HDMI audio ever again.... well, until you upgrade... oh, this is perfectly safe, trust us, nothing could possibly go wrong here...
>
> Unfortunately this was only for a specific version of a specific kext on a specific model of Macbook, but it did work...

I suppose, if you’re willing to never have the ability to use HDMI Audio Output from your laptop (which wouldn’t work well for me).

I will say that it’s annoying to have to do it each time you connect to the monitor, but it is relatively trivial to change the audio output back after the monitor and laptop finish their whole HDMI negotiation and the various auto switches have finished screwing up your system settings.

System Preferences->Audio->Output — Select the output you want instead of the HDMI monitor.

> All I want is to be able to reliably inform my computer that the thingie on my desk is "just" a monitor and not a TV/HiFi system/similar... is that too much to ask!?!!?!!?!??!! <sob>

I’m reminded of a certain advertising slogan…
“Dude! You got [stuck with] a Dell.”

> (Actually, this used to annoy me enough that I purchased one of bunnie Huang's NeTV (https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=17 <https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=17>) devices, which allows taking in HDMI, munging it and sending it out (e.g to do text overlays). My plan was to repurpose it as a straight data passthrough, but overriding the HDMI profile info, but as with most of these sorts of projects I got sidetracked into playing with the build environment instead, and now the hardware is buried under a pile of other abandoned projects somewhere on my workbench)

I can’t relate to this one bit… Nope, not at all…

> Thank you all, I feel much better now...

Glad we could collectively help.

Owen
>

On 9/1/21 3:17 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:28 PM <bzs@theworld.com
> <mailto:bzs@theworld.com>> wrote:
>
>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it.
>
>
> And everytime I see an email thread about the difference or not
> between monitors and TVs I'm taken over by an all consuming rage...
> I have a **monitor**.... I purchased it from Dell, and it clearly said
> "monitor" on the box, it identifies itself somewhere display settings
> as a "monitor", and even says "monitor" in small letters somewhere on
> the back.... It's a MONITOR dagnabit... but, for some unfathomable
> reason it has some tiny little speakers in it, and every time I
> connect it via HDMI to my Mac laptop, the machine decides to
> completely ignore the fact that I've told it that I want to use a
> specific sound output, and starts playing all audio though the
> monitors speakers. Oh, and because this is HDMI, and Apple apparently
> follows the HDMI spec, the Mac volume controls won't work ("This
> device has no audio level control" or something...) and I have to go
> scrummaging around in some horrendous on-screen monitor menu to make
> it less obnoxiously loud...

Huh. I have a Mac and my monitor was definitely marketed as a TV and all
I do is just turn the volume down on the TV remote and don't have issues
with the Mac not honoring where its audio output is. So there is
obviously something different between our two setups. It does like you
say not have the ability to control volume which I don't understand
because my chromecast can do that and its only cable is HDMI so
obviously the Mac can too.


>
> All attempts to get this less stupid result in Apple pointing at the
> HDMI spec and saying that if a device advertises audio capabilites
> they list it as an output device, and Dell pointing out that they
> simply advirtise the fact that the device has a speaker, and, well,
> shrug, not thier issue if things try and use it.

I can understand why they have speakers and all of that even if it's
just a monitor because it's probably cheaper to just have one model to
manufacture and just rebrand it. There was some device -- gad I want to
think it was an old DEC terminal server -- that just filled in the
serial ports with glue or something so that you couldn't use them. That
was pretty shameless.

Mike

Well apparently there are VPN applications that rely on fellow VPN users in a P2P fashion to share network connectivity. I guess it is like a commercialized version of Tor to some extent. Excluding any potential legal risks for illegal behavior tunneled through an unsuspecting fellow user, this has great potential to cause a contaminating spread of VPN flagged IP addresses, even with just normal usage.


One such VPN application is Hola VPN which also has a premium version using their VPN server gateways instead of or perhaps in addition to the community method.


Dynamic IP address assignments by an ISP could easily allow for one such user to get many IP addresses flagged as a VPN gateway. I have communicated with some IP reputation companies and they track VPN users and can even supply the specific VPN brand associated with certain IP addresses, with timestamps, they have observed and added to their reputation databases as VPN users. How they obtain their data I do not know for sure but I can think of a few ways.


So we seem to have a battle between

* users
* streaming content providers
* streaming content owners / copyright holders
* ISPs
* VPN providers
* restrictive/invasive governments or network operators
* ??

There is definitely collateral damage from their use that should be considered, especially if very prominent streaming content providers take a more restrictive posture towards users of these kinds of VPN services.



________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jkrejci=usinternet.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Haudy Kazemi via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Owen DeLong; nanog list
Cc: bzs@theworld.com
Subject: Re: The great Netflix vpn debacle! (geofeeds)

Some TVs may also try to rescale the inputs, or enhance/process the image in ways that can improve perceived video quality. Things like increasing frame rates of sources that are lower frame rates (thus the 120 Hz and 240 Hz TVs that attempt to make 24, 30, and 60 FPS sources look better), or deinterlacing 1080i ATSC sources.

Some of this image processing may not work well in specific monitor use cases.

I have had generally good results with using a TV as an HTPC monitor. Only issues I've run into over the years are

1.) a 1080p Sony TV with a VGA input that could not handle 1920x1080 (using HDMI worked)
and
2.) a 720p Toshiba that could not show the BIOS screen of the attached computer (I think this was either an unsupported resolution issue, or a timing issue where the TV couldn't wake up fast enough from the 'signal lost' message to display a brand new signal input).

YMMV.


VPNs: there is a race going on between streaming services who want to block VPNs, and VPN services who have customers who want to be able to watch streams (whether in or out of their regions). Some VPN customers buy VPN services because they do not trust their ISP to not do stuff like selling browsing histories.

I think ISPs are getting caught in the middle, maybe when they have IP ranges near or in the middle of ranges that are suspected by IP reputation companies as being used by VPN services. I'd guess the problem is more likely to affect smaller ISPs, and not the Comcast/Cox/Charter/Spectrum/CenturyLinks of the world. There are also 'distributed VPN' services that let people share their connections with others.

We are also seeing fragmentation in the cable/streaming service space, similar to what happened in the cable/Dish Network/DirecTV wars. Add it all up, some customers may throw up their hands in annoyance at the various platforms and then revert to other means of obtaining the content they seek.



On Wed, Sep 1, 2021, 15:13 Owen DeLong via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:


> On Sep 1, 2021, at 11:25 , bzs@theworld.com<mailto:bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Every time I've read a thread about using TVs for monitors several
> people who'd tried would say don't do it. I think the gist was that
> the image processors in the TVs would fuzz text or something like
> that. That it was usable but they were unhappy with their attempts, it
> was tiring on the eyes.

That was definitely true of 480 TVs and older 1080p units, but modern sets
are almost designed to be monitors first and everything else second.

> Maybe that's changed or maybe people happy with this don't do a lot of
> text? Or maybe there are settings involved they weren't aware of, or
> some TVs (other than superficial specs like 4K vs 720p) are better for
> this than others so some will say they're happy and others not so
> much?

There are some tradeoffs? For example, sitting normal computer monitor
distance from a 44? 4K screen, you can damn near see the individual pixels
and that can make text look fuzzy, especially if your GPU or OS are stupid
enough to use a technique called anti-aliasing on text (which is the most
probable source of the fuzziness in your originally quoted complaint).

Older TVs would try to smooth some aspects of the analog signal they were
using through anti-aliasing pixels that occurred on the edge of a change in
the color signal to ?smooth? the image. (The extent of this action was what
was controlled by the ?Sharpness? knob back in the analog days).

Turning off this capability (Sharpness to the left most or lowest setting) would
often improve things greatly.

> Or maybe the unhappy ones were all trolls/sockpuppets from companies
> manufacturing/selling $500+ 24" **GAMING** monitors.

Possible, but unlikely.

Owen

>
> On September 1, 2021 at 09:48 nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 18:01 , Michael Thomas < mike@mtcc.com<mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27? monitor, I ended up buying a 44? smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27? alternatives that weren?t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27? televisions which didn?t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>>>
>>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>>
>> Costco stocks several 44? 4K TV models (like the one I got) that are relatively cheap. It?s a little larger than your 40? goldilocks, but I think still within range.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>
> --
> -Barry Shein
>
> Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com<https://url-shield.securence.com/?p=1.0&r=jkrejci@usinternet.com&sid=1630532728631-074-00414111&s=osprbf5n&n=bporvf65s&ms=0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.TheWorld.com>
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

At the risk of going off-topic, there must be an over-representation of network engineers as their customer: because I bought the same TV to also use as a 4k monitor.

And the power supply on it just died. Samsung makes a 39” 4k and I haven’t been able to find it.

How’s this relevant? We’ve been using them as 4k desktop monitors visualizing fiber routing for years now.


—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
lb@6by7.net <mailto:lb@6by7.net>
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ


> On Aug 31, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>
> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>
> Mike
>
>

On 9/1/21 7:58 PM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> At the risk of going off-topic, there must be an over-representation
> of network engineers as their customer: because I bought the same TV
> to also use as a 4k monitor.
>
> And the power supply on it just died.  Samsung makes a 39” 4k and I
> haven’t been able to find it.
>
> How’s this relevant?  We’ve been using them as 4k desktop monitors
> visualizing fiber routing for years now.

Haha I'm not a network engineer, much more of a software engineer with
lots of networking. the ability to get three browser windows up side by
side is really nice for writing and testing code. There's probably more
of a market out there then they realize. If you build it, we will come...

Mike


>
>
> —L.B.
>
> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
> CEO
> lb@6by7.net <mailto:lb@6by7.net>
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company
> in the world.”
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>
>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 6:01 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com
>> <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/31/21 4:40 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> On the other hand, the last time I went looking for a 27” monitor, I
>>> ended up buying a 44” smart television because it was a cheaper HDMI
>>> 4K monitor than the 27” alternatives that weren’t televisions. (It
>>> also ended up being cheaper than the 27” televisions which didn’t do
>>> 4K only 1080p, but I digress).
>>
>> Back when 4k just came out and they were really expensive, I found a
>> "TV" by an obscure brand called Seiki which was super cheap. It was a
>> 39" model. It's just a monitor to me, but I have gotten really used
>> to its size and not needing two different monitors (and the gfx card
>> to support it). What's distressing is that I was looking at what
>> would happen if I needed to replace it and there is this gigantic gap
>> where there are 30" monitors (= expensive) and 50" TV's which are
>> relatively cheap. The problem is that 40" is sort of Goldielocks with
>> 4k where 50" is way too big and 30" is too small. Thankfully it's
>> going on 10 years old and still working fine.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>

On 9/2/21 17:46, Michael Thomas wrote:

> Haha I'm not a network engineer, much more of a software engineer with
> lots of networking. the ability to get three browser windows up side
> by side is really nice for writing and testing code. There's probably
> more of a market out there then they realize. If you build it, we will
> come...
>

Everyone that I know who spends most of their time writing code can't
get enough screens :-).

Mark.

On 9/3/21 6:54 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Everyone that I know who spends most of their time writing code can't
> get enough screens :-).

Size matters, too. For example, I have a 54" screen. My record is
twelve open (tiled) code windows. Usually, I have three or four code
windows and a LibreWriter window with the specifiations and requirements.

On 9/3/21 17:07, Stephen Satchell wrote:

>
> Size matters, too.  For example, I have a 54" screen.  My record is
> twelve open (tiled) code windows.  Usually, I have three or four code
> windows and a LibreWriter window with the specifiations and requirements.

Okay  - "screen real estate" :-).

Mark.

I've been mulling over the use of an interactive whiteboard -
not just for the "screen real estate",
as you so correctly put it,
but also to save my doodles.
It beats hogging whiteboards.
Has anyone tried this?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:19 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

>
>
> On 9/3/21 17:07, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> >
> > Size matters, too. For example, I have a 54" screen. My record is
> > twelve open (tiled) code windows. Usually, I have three or four code
> > windows and a LibreWriter window with the specifiations and requirements.
>
> Okay - "screen real estate" :-).
>
> Mark.
>
>

--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale