5 ms·

Traceroute from a Norwegian Airlines airplane

84 points by watson 13y ago

DigitalSea 13y ago
Wow, look at those response times: impressive.
- lflux 13y ago
  I've had a better experience from Norwegian planes than from some hotel WiFi networks.
  - oldmanjoe 13y ago
    and me. The Wifi is amazing considering you are at 39,000 ft.
    - djthorpe 13y ago
      ...and it's free. I'm super impressed with Norwegian Airlines.
  - oldmanjoe 13y ago
    just to be clear - I am not saying that the Wifi was broadcast from/to 39,000 ft ;-) Obviously I am referring to the wifi in the cabin that connects to the Norwegian Air system...
ubersync 13y ago
Am I missing something? Why is this on first page of HN. Not downplaying, I honestly don't know.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Same old reason. Members of HN voted up because they found it of interest. Now, tell me, did you really honestly not know that? I bet you did ;)
  - judofyr 13y ago
    I think GP is really asking "Why do people find this interesting?"
    - pwelch 13y ago
      A better question is: "Who doesn't find tracing packets from 39,000 feet interesting?" =)
- ubersync 13y ago
  Not that I care, but do the people who are down voting me, care to explain why? I don't think my comment was derogatory or anything, I just failed to understand why this article was amusing, and wanted to know what makes it interesting. I am sure other people might have the same question, and would have benefitted from the answers.
  - alenart 13y ago
    This appeals to me because I love anything dealing with aviation, you might love something else that I find to be an absolute bore and vice-versa. Is there any point discussing why we like and dislike what we like and dislike?
    - ubersync 13y ago
      I thought there was maybe something I was missing, e.g. the speeds being extraordinary or something. I guess people are too trigger happy when it comes to downvoting a comment.
lucb1e 13y ago
Next time you get the chance to ask astronauts something (in the Netherlands we had that once with Andre Kuipers I think), ask them to do a traceroute from space!
- pavel_lishin 13y ago
  I wonder if Chris Hadfield would be willing, he seems to be pretty engaged with us on the ground: http://twitter.com/cmdr_hadfield http://twitter.com/cmdr_hadfield
Zigurd 13y ago
I can't excuse all the nodes in that traceroute, but the ones with a domain "direcpceu" are Hughes Communication satellite ISP nodes. Their satellites are geosynchronous, so, for two legs in each direction, those packets went a very long way before reaching the ground and coming back to the plane.
- pwelch 13y ago
  Thanks for that. I was wondering where the transition from air to land was. Makes sense they route through Satellites. It makes it more interesting because your packets are going from 39,000 feet to space then to land. Awesome
  - andyjenn 13y ago
    This is implemented over Ku-band by Row44... http://new.row44.com/faq/ http://new.row44.com/faq/
watson 13y ago
I started this trace-route within 30 seconds after the seatbelt sign was switched off (the wifi isn't enabled while taking off), so I imagine only a few people would have had the time to connect to the wifi at this point. But in general, the wifi on one of these flights is very useless. I was hacking on a node.js project and used it to look up some ES5 related stuff on StackOverflow. I tried to post it to gist.github.com while in the air but wasn't even able to load the page (though google and SO loaded fine)
- watson 13y ago
  I also tried to comment on a post on Stack Overflow. The first 5 times I clicked the button, I got a timeout and had to try again. But in the end some lucky guy got a response on SO from 10km above Europe ;)
- joezydeco 13y ago
  GoGo in-flight wireless in the USA is using a terrestrial network that piggybacks on cell towers. I've had 1.5 Mbit with ~400 mSec ping times, which is a lot more usable than the satellite systems.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    GoGo uses their own equipment on ~400 AT&T towers across the US, networked together using AT&T's MPLS network. Disclaimer: I interviewed at Aircell at one point.
themurph 13y ago
I think Louis CK responded to this best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4
homeomorphic 13y ago
A minor nitpick: I think the author means simply the airline known as "Norwegian", formally "Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA". "Norwegian Airlines" makes them sound like our main carrier, while they are in fact a (very popular and vastly successful) low cost, point-to-point-only, no-frills one.
ck2 13y ago
Well Google will probably peer someday with direcpceu.com (Hughes) I think it's using a satellite network in orbit just like people with rural internet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanAmSat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanAmSat
mseebach 13y ago
I wonder if it would be practical to install upwards facing antennas on cell tower and then have a tracking dish on planes track these to cut out the satellite when over (populated) ground. If a line-of-sight microwave link could be established, it should be possible to have high-bandwidth low-latency connectivity in the air. What is the effective beamwidth of a microwave antenna that needs to maintain a 50-100km link? Would the ground antennas need to be tracking as well?
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Tracking aircraft is not practical unless you're going to use a phased array, and the problem you'll run into then is how large the cells are when you're pointing towards the sky, reducing spectrum separation.
  - mseebach 13y ago
    Why is tracking aircraft impractical? In university I was involved in building an antenna that would track a LEO satellite (a bit crudely, though), with a pass taking about 15 minutes - that's pretty similar to a pass by a full-altitude aircraft. The main impracticality I can see is that you'll need an antenna pr. aircraft in range.
    - hga 13y ago
      If you want to track a number of aircraft, and not require an antenna/dish per each or have resultant mechanical breakdowns, phased array antennas are the best solution.
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Thanks for responding.
- jof 13y ago
  This is _exactly_ what Aircell does in the US. I'm not sure what spectra they're using, but the bandwidth would likely be quite variable, as planes with non-directional antennas will interact with one another over wide areas. Weather could also play a part, depending on the frequency.
ShabbyDoo 13y ago
Southwest apparently uses Row44 for in-flight WiFi. When it even works, it's absurdly slow. So slow that I'd gladly take a dial-up modem experience instead. On top of this, the company insists on slapping up a banner on the top of every webpage. If I click the "go away" button, I have to wait 30 seconds for the page to re-load. [Yes, I'm sure GreaseMonkey, etc. could rescue me] I fly on Southwest so often that I receive free WiFi, but I rarely use it. Even logging in is a multi-minute ordeal. I can't see how Row44 can generate enough revenue to justify its existence given the abysmal user experience.

84 points by watson 13y ago

DigitalSea 13y ago

Wow, look at those response times: impressive.

lflux 13y ago
I've had a better experience from Norwegian planes than from some hotel WiFi networks.
- oldmanjoe 13y ago
  and me. The Wifi is amazing considering you are at 39,000 ft.
  - djthorpe 13y ago
    ...and it's free. I'm super impressed with Norwegian Airlines.
- oldmanjoe 13y ago
  just to be clear - I am not saying that the Wifi was broadcast from/to 39,000 ft ;-) Obviously I am referring to the wifi in the cabin that connects to the Norwegian Air system...

ubersync 13y ago

Am I missing something? Why is this on first page of HN. Not downplaying, I honestly don't know.

alan_cx 13y ago
Same old reason. Members of HN voted up because they found it of interest. Now, tell me, did you really honestly not know that? I bet you did ;)
- judofyr 13y ago
  I think GP is really asking "Why do people find this interesting?"
  - pwelch 13y ago
    A better question is: "Who doesn't find tracing packets from 39,000 feet interesting?" =)
ubersync 13y ago
Not that I care, but do the people who are down voting me, care to explain why? I don't think my comment was derogatory or anything, I just failed to understand why this article was amusing, and wanted to know what makes it interesting. I am sure other people might have the same question, and would have benefitted from the answers.
- alenart 13y ago
  This appeals to me because I love anything dealing with aviation, you might love something else that I find to be an absolute bore and vice-versa. Is there any point discussing why we like and dislike what we like and dislike?
  - ubersync 13y ago
    I thought there was maybe something I was missing, e.g. the speeds being extraordinary or something. I guess people are too trigger happy when it comes to downvoting a comment.

lucb1e 13y ago

Next time you get the chance to ask astronauts something (in the Netherlands we had that once with Andre Kuipers I think), ask them to do a traceroute from space!

pavel_lishin 13y ago
I wonder if Chris Hadfield would be willing, he seems to be pretty engaged with us on the ground: http://twitter.com/cmdr_hadfield http://twitter.com/cmdr_hadfield

Zigurd 13y ago

I can't excuse all the nodes in that traceroute, but the ones with a domain "direcpceu" are Hughes Communication satellite ISP nodes. Their satellites are geosynchronous, so, for two legs in each direction, those packets went a very long way before reaching the ground and coming back to the plane.

pwelch 13y ago
Thanks for that. I was wondering where the transition from air to land was. Makes sense they route through Satellites. It makes it more interesting because your packets are going from 39,000 feet to space then to land. Awesome
- andyjenn 13y ago
  This is implemented over Ku-band by Row44... http://new.row44.com/faq/ http://new.row44.com/faq/

watson 13y ago

I started this trace-route within 30 seconds after the seatbelt sign was switched off (the wifi isn't enabled while taking off), so I imagine only a few people would have had the time to connect to the wifi at this point. But in general, the wifi on one of these flights is very useless. I was hacking on a node.js project and used it to look up some ES5 related stuff on StackOverflow. I tried to post it to gist.github.com while in the air but wasn't even able to load the page (though google and SO loaded fine)

watson 13y ago
I also tried to comment on a post on Stack Overflow. The first 5 times I clicked the button, I got a timeout and had to try again. But in the end some lucky guy got a response on SO from 10km above Europe ;)
joezydeco 13y ago
GoGo in-flight wireless in the USA is using a terrestrial network that piggybacks on cell towers. I've had 1.5 Mbit with ~400 mSec ping times, which is a lot more usable than the satellite systems.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  GoGo uses their own equipment on ~400 AT&T towers across the US, networked together using AT&T's MPLS network. Disclaimer: I interviewed at Aircell at one point.

themurph 13y ago

I think Louis CK responded to this best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4

homeomorphic 13y ago

A minor nitpick: I think the author means simply the airline known as "Norwegian", formally "Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA". "Norwegian Airlines" makes them sound like our main carrier, while they are in fact a (very popular and vastly successful) low cost, point-to-point-only, no-frills one.

ck2 13y ago

Well Google will probably peer someday with direcpceu.com (Hughes) I think it's using a satellite network in orbit just like people with rural internet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanAmSat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PanAmSat

mseebach 13y ago

I wonder if it would be practical to install upwards facing antennas on cell tower and then have a tracking dish on planes track these to cut out the satellite when over (populated) ground. If a line-of-sight microwave link could be established, it should be possible to have high-bandwidth low-latency connectivity in the air. What is the effective beamwidth of a microwave antenna that needs to maintain a 50-100km link? Would the ground antennas need to be tracking as well?

toomuchtodo 13y ago
Tracking aircraft is not practical unless you're going to use a phased array, and the problem you'll run into then is how large the cells are when you're pointing towards the sky, reducing spectrum separation.
- mseebach 13y ago
  Why is tracking aircraft impractical? In university I was involved in building an antenna that would track a LEO satellite (a bit crudely, though), with a pass taking about 15 minutes - that's pretty similar to a pass by a full-altitude aircraft. The main impracticality I can see is that you'll need an antenna pr. aircraft in range.
  - hga 13y ago
    If you want to track a number of aircraft, and not require an antenna/dish per each or have resultant mechanical breakdowns, phased array antennas are the best solution.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Thanks for responding.
jof 13y ago
This is _exactly_ what Aircell does in the US. I'm not sure what spectra they're using, but the bandwidth would likely be quite variable, as planes with non-directional antennas will interact with one another over wide areas. Weather could also play a part, depending on the frequency.

ShabbyDoo 13y ago

Southwest apparently uses Row44 for in-flight WiFi. When it even works, it's absurdly slow. So slow that I'd gladly take a dial-up modem experience instead. On top of this, the company insists on slapping up a banner on the top of every webpage. If I click the "go away" button, I have to wait 30 seconds for the page to re-load. [Yes, I'm sure GreaseMonkey, etc. could rescue me] I fly on Southwest so often that I receive free WiFi, but I rarely use it. Even logging in is a multi-minute ordeal. I can't see how Row44 can generate enough revenue to justify its existence given the abysmal user experience.