[WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573-247-9980 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] automated response
Hello, I will be vacationing until the 2nd of January. Feel free to call my cell if you need me before then. I will have no access to email until the 30th or so. Thanks, Mike Cell 419-706-7348 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
Mark McElvy wrote: Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Assuming you don't need anything really crazy fancy, on Debian, just give yourself root privileges (from a console, type 'su' and enter the root password), then 'apt-get install freeradius'. If you've set up FreeRADIUS before (by using, perhaps, the Windows port of it) everything is pretty similar. The configuration files are all in /etc/freeradius (I think, they might be in /etc/raddb), and they're copiously well-documented. If you've got any specific questions or needs, feel free to hit me offlist and I'll try to help you out. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain English that a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak product? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, I'll answer this with a re-post of a September post that explains, in part, why VL is not just regular CSMA: trim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Grin Keep your coax tools to yourself sir! As for the pipe, I've used both the equinox and pac wireless. Pac has a much stronger product, hands down. Unless the other guys finally caught up. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a 10 mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing. I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig... Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts. Same long arm, heavy pipe... No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive. I'll split a case with ya, if you want :) Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want :) ok ok, I won't. :) Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of Alvarion I do have to side with him on this. I just called Ben Moore at PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me. They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things. Now I have to carry FOUR tools up the ladder. Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm? Those are the same size People have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing with. If there's a standard out there, please stick with it. We have enough things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange default username/password combos! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem to manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line? It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor of choice. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin configuration. Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal! Just about a millimeter too small! When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin color code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the validation Marty. I suspect that some might have thought there was a catch. I almost forgot that the cable was pre-terminated. That's one of the things we don't highlight enough -- VL CPE does not require hidden extra things to buy like power supplies, cable, connectors, mounting kits, and certainly not antennas. So what's the impact overall to you business model under the AlvarionCOMNET program? Pat -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Dougherty Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:48 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Well we got our 1st 100 pack of VL Su's under the Comnet program yesterday- Just wanted you all to know they are the EXACT same radios as before the big price drop- Same high
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Mark, 48vdc is the poe ieee standard. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:51 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The neg 48vDC is simply an option (standard 100-240 vAC is the other option) for powering of the rack mounted chassis. In the telecom space it's very common that folks have racks powered that way. The CPE's themselves are not 48vDC. On the CPE 54 vDC is sent via PoE up to the ODU from the IDU. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Patrick... I find the 48V power thing a HUGE problem. almost every site I have now is 12V powered... +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:09 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, You say most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them... In response to that reality we created a version of the VL AU for rural markets. We came to realize that the cost of a regular of VL AU where likely user counts are low simply was not economical. So we came up with the AUS. Three VL sectors using the AUS will support 75 users. An AUS (list of $2,595) has a limit of 25 attachments, but it can be upgraded if the demographics will support it; it is otherwise no different from a regular VL AU. Three AUS sectors will cost you about $6k, so about 2.4x your more modest three sector arrangement. The install will be easier, so that will make up a little (unless you don't count your time as a cost). But that will also support about 100mbps net so you can figure the math in terms of what can be delivered to subs at your chosen oversubscription. And you know it will do that at range LOS since the CPE has an integrated 21dBi MTI. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived It's much closer Patrick. That's for sure. Let run some numbers though. Tranzeo or Inscape Data ap: $450ish. Will deliver an honest 3 to 4 megs to almost anyone at ranges up to 10 miles. 1 to 2 megs out to 15 miles. Sector antenna, $400. Or omni and amp, $500 to $700 depending on the quality of the amp and antenna. This'll handle roughly 75 to 100 users pretty easily. If we need 3 sectors we're still at $2500 or so for the whole pop, battery backup, switch, cables etc. If we're lucky that'll even include backhaul. For CPE the cost is gonna be around: 15dB integrated antenna version (good to 3 to 5 miles) $180ish 18dB version (out to around 8 miles) $200ish $12ish for antenna brackets (I don't buy the cheap ones, only the good ones from PacWireless) $10 to $20 for cable ($.15 to $.25 per foot) Misc. nuts and bolts $20. We're at $225 $250 per sub plus labor. Connectorized version, $180ish 24dB grid antenna, $90ish (I don't buy cheap antennas, only Andrew cast magnesium (same as the Alvarion ones)) Mount, $12 Misc. nuts and bolt, tape etc. $20 Cable, $10 to $20. This one comes in closer to $350 when it's all said and done. Believe me, I understand about the long term maintenance costs too. But I've got to compete against cable, dsl, fiber to the home or all of the above in ALL of my population density centers and a lot of my rural areas. Most of my towers have fewer than 25 users on them. Many are under 10. Only a few are anywhere near 50 and one serves around 100. Last year we installed over 80 new radios (some of them were for our use, some were upgrades etc.) and have, so far, around 60 new subs. This with basically no marketing effort at all, and in the face of amazing competition. Per customer there are VERY few out there that have more competitive services. Our network now spans around 6000 square miles. It's taken over 20 sites with nearly 30 ap's to do this. Our growth potential is
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain English that a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak product? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, I'll answer this with a re-post of a September post that explains, in part, why VL is not just regular CSMA: trim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
They're about the same. Pac does have the extra-heavy and extra long version, and I don't know if Equinox matches that one or not. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin Keep your coax tools to yourself sir! As for the pipe, I've used both the equinox and pac wireless. Pac has a much stronger product, hands down. Unless the other guys finally caught up. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived HAH, yeah, I was digging rather irritatedly around the van looking for a 10 mm wrench on Monday as well... same thing. I normally do not carry metric tools out on my install rig... Early in the year, I'm going to pick up some Equinox universal mounts. Same long arm, heavy pipe... No 10 mm nuts... and a LOT less expensive. I'll split a case with ya, if you want :) Might even drive up there and stick a few needles in coax, if you want :) ok ok, I won't. :) Mark +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Grin, while I've certainly noticed Brad's almost religious dislike of Alvarion I do have to side with him on this. I just called Ben Moore at PacWireless yesterday to bitch about the new Sat. arm mounts he sent me. They have some bizarre metric nut on the dang things. Now I have to carry FOUR tools up the ladder. Why can't everyone use 7/16, 12mm? Those are the same size People have the same size bolts, it's just the damned nut size that they keep screwing with. If there's a standard out there, please stick with it. We have enough things to remember to do without custom wiring standards or strange default username/password combos! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The gaul of us to create a tight seal. I am sorry you are not able to figure out how to attach the connector Brad. Thousands of others seem to manage just fine and when is the last time you ever heard of anyone complaining about water intrusion into a VL VPE or PoE line? It is simply amazing at the lengths you will go to find something to bitch about in your attempt to Aspen to switch to you personal vendor of choice. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:15 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Yep, the cable is pre-terminated in some odd non-code compliant pin configuration. Oh, and pre-terminated due to the fact that the RJ45 connector doesn't fit through the weather seal! Just about a millimeter too small! When are you guys going to start using the standard 568A or 568B pin color code and enlarge that weather seal so a RJ45 connector fits through it? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Thanks for the validation Marty. I
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain English that a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak product? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, I'll answer this with a re-post of a September post that explains, in part, why VL is not just regular CSMA: trim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190).
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
This is my point Marlon, your beef is based on erroneous assumptions because you are still are talking like it is a basic wifi radio. It is not. Have you not read any of the posts about how the CSAM is able to be modified or adjustable? As I have said and I'll try to say it again, you can adjust many ways. The mechanism you are used with all your low end stuff to leaves you entirely at the mercy of others...you have no ability to make adjustments. With VL you do. Polling in VL would BE A DOWNGRADE. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain English that a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak product? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
My thoughts exactly. If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today. Without those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in RF hostile environments. The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:13 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got that part. I still didn't see in there anywhere, in plain English that a neophyte like me can understand, is this a polling or csmak product? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[WISPA] Ruckus Units...
Did someone say they were a ruckus dealer ? I'd like to get a unit to test in a specific coverage area. R -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
I don't think Marlon is asserting the VL is simply another wifi radio (even though it does use a wifi Atheros chip with CSAM), but more so that the VL offers no method for a user to avoid or overcome noise. Simply lowering modulation, slowing down and retransmitting over and over until the packet gets through is not an acceptable solution for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived This is my point Marlon, your beef is based on erroneous assumptions because you are still are talking like it is a basic wifi radio. It is not. Have you not read any of the posts about how the CSAM is able to be modified or adjustable? As I have said and I'll try to say it again, you can adjust many ways. The mechanism you are used with all your low end stuff to leaves you entirely at the mercy of others...you have no ability to make adjustments. With VL you do. Polling in VL would BE A DOWNGRADE. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
I don't think Marlon is asserting the VL is simply another wifi radio (even though it does use a wifi Atheros chip with CSAM), but more so that the VL offers no method for a user to avoid or overcome noise. Simply lowering modulation, slowing down and retransmitting over and over until the packet gets through is not an acceptable solution for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived This is my point Marlon, your beef is based on erroneous assumptions because you are still are talking like it is a basic wifi radio. It is not. Have you not read any of the posts about how the CSAM is able to be modified or adjustable? As I have said and I'll try to say it again, you can adjust many ways. The mechanism you are used with all your low end stuff to leaves you entirely at the mercy of others...you have no ability to make adjustments. With VL you do. Polling in VL would BE A DOWNGRADE. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
I have two things in place right now. MRTG type data coming right off of the routers. http://64.146.186.1:81/graphs/iface/eth1-upstream/ http://64.146.146.1:81/graphs/iface/eth1%2Duplink/ And, I have a cool bit tracking program that uses the netflow data generated by my routers. http://radius.odessaoffice.com/iptrack/topusers.php The next upgrade I'll get will be a column added to the stats so that I can see the top 5 or 10 ports that each customer uses each day. I'll know a lot more about what they are doing when I get that data. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Andrew Niemantsverdriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps How are you guys tracking usage? What program are you using to measure it and are you measureing every bit or an average? On 12/22/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not had the guts to do what Marlon does. But that doesn't mean there isn't merit in his method. Part of the reason is we put in place technology that allows the use of available bandwdith with limited impact to other users, therefore taking away some of the need to charge for it, if it was jsut going unused any way. in otherwords Bandwdith allocated on a fair weighted queuing priority basis. The advatnage of Marlon's model, is he has the data to pick and chose customers. The high bandwdith hogs gets given to the competition or pay. The second a network starts reaching capacity and the market penetration doesn't, it becomes feasible to be happy not keeping all customers, instead you pick the most profitable customers. The facts are the the network supports it or it doesn't, the provider can afford to upgrade or they can't. What I'm learning is, selling 10mbps peak speeds allows you to play the Comcast game, and beat them at it. I'm selling unlimited now, but its important to track the usage. That might have to change, as people start using the links to replace their VCRs. The reality is, eventuality one will have to port limit or charge per bit. I'm jsut avoiding that day until it has to happen, so I don't lose customers for the greater good, unless I have to. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: First, I have to figure out how many kbps a gig of download would be. Specifically, I've got a couple of customers doing 50 gigs per month. How many kbps does it take to generate that? Assuming a month is 30 days (nice round number), 50GB/month is about 161kbps, all the time. That's the equivalent of, say, leaving a high-quality streaming radio station running, or a low-quality video feed like gbs.tv. I'm staying out of the rest of the discussion, because I'm violently allergic to pay-by-the-bit pricing. It may make good sense to the bookkeeper, but with streaming media (YouTube, Google Video), big downloadable media (iTunes movies, Amazon Unbox), and giant software downloads (World of Warcraft and just about every other MMORPG) becoming more prevalent, I think it's just gonna seriously annoy your users in the long term. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Sorry for the double post...compoooter issues today I guess! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Are you paying extra for bursting, or just the overall bandwidth used? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps But a cahing server if you can't afford the bandwidth. Seriously, your model, the old model, is about dead and buried. Cache serves are great. When I used to use one it saved me about 25% on my bandwidth costs. We tried to do this with the MT routers, but they actually seemed to slow things down. I know that they (and Butch) claimed it was really faster. However, the look and feel was noticably slower, and perception sometimes trumps reality. I've been thinking of putting some in again. How much does it cost to watch a movie across the net using your system? No idea. But it's an up and coming reality. I see it as having an even bigger impact on the network than Napster did. And this time, there's cool new technology anyone's going to be able to move to to help deal with the usage issues. AND bandwidth costs don't seem to be sliding down much, if at all, these days. The last 12 to 18 months seem to have stablized things, at least around here. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Wrong answer, It should be the other way around. Because we don't bit charge, we manage our network to accomadate our users needs. I would imagine that if you were here telling your subs that they had to pay more, they would be coming this way. Yeppers. They can and they will. But not all of them. Only the bandwidth hogs. Look at it like this, choke a customer to 512k instead of 2000k. Is that customer going to do any less on the network? Nope. He's gonna do what he wanted to do all alone. It'll just take him longer. I've got almost 400 broadband users on my network. At 512k that means I'd need 200ish mbps to take care of them if they all used it all the time. Instead, we're actually averaging about 1.5 in, .5 out on the main site. .8 in and .2 out here in Odessa. So my 400 broadband users are averaging 2.5 megs in and 1 out. That's a LOT better than even the 10 megs you'll need if my top ten users move to your service. AND when selling speed, you are in direct competion with the companies that own the bulk of the network. Who wants to try to compete agains the telco or the cable co? Yikes. Just for kicks, lets look at the last 7 days here on my network: Odessa: Max In: 3.18 Mb Average In: 1.22 Mb Current In: 1.02 Mb Max Out: 737.05 Kb Average Out: 275.54 Kb Current Out: 172.59 Kb Ephrata: Max In: 6.53 Mb Average In: 1.69 Mb Current In: 2.04 Mb Max Out: 2.35 Mb Average Out: 479.40 Kb Current Out: 823.21 Kb So, even at this rate, I'm still on track for a max usage of 400 users vs. your 20 users at 512k. AND I don't HAVE to try to provide that 512k for all of my users. Sure they expect that today, heck, many get mad when they don't see the 2000k they usually do. I can honestly tell them that I'm not selling speed. I'm selling capacity. For me, adding speed is fairly cheap. Adding capacity costs too much. I'm not scared of my subs usage, I've been building out specifically for their future high usage needs. You should be scared of this. At some point you'll have to put a limit on them. Ever figured out how many 128k users it takes to tie up a $500 per month t-1??? At $30 to $40 per month the numbers just don't work. Now, don't go telling me about your amazing $20 per mbps bandwith deal. Cause we BOTH know that it's not really costing you that. There are also transport fees etc. that have to be figured in to get an apples to apples comparison. Sure I pay $200 per meg of usage here in Odessa. But I also pay $800 per month for the circuit that'll carry those megs! Bottom line, you need to get over the hump of not having enough subs to pay for the extra bandwidth where you can get a much better per meg rate. Get more subs! Grin. working on it! George Right now, we have 9 users over 10 gigs per month. That means that 5% of my customers are more than, much more than, 5% of my bw costs. The average person is using less than 2 gigs. Worst of all, the OTHER customers on the towers that the highest of the high end users are calling about bad service. Soo000, how would you like to be a competitor here,
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Thanks! To you and your's too! Yeah, I'm working on it. Right now we're in talks with the heavy users to see what amounts won't run them off but will make up the difference between the 4 gig included model and what they are really consuming. I'm sure we'll run some off. But the goal isn't to chase them away. It's really to get them paying for what they are really using. Best of both worlds. Keep the customer and upsell them based on real world data. Those that won't upsell, will move to someone else and totally screw up the customers on their ap's and their bandwidth needs. In the end, my customers win. See how clever I really am? I've got some folks here arguing about black and white. All the while I'm working in shades of the rainbow! I'd better remember that next time I let myself get sucked into a my dad can beat up your dad argument! hehehehe Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi Marlon, Merry Christmas to you and your family! Just a thought, you might want to fire those 9 customers. You could also rate-limit them down to 56K and see how long they stick around. Jeff -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Date: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 pm Size: 3K To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cause it takes just 9 uers at 50 gigs per month to double my BW costs. At $35 per month in service fees, the 50 gig user chews up more than 10% of my costs. He needs to pay more. Or, he needs to get his service from you. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Right now, we have 9 users over 10 gigs per month. That means that 5% of my customers are more than, much more than, 5% of my bw costs. The average person is using less than 2 gigs. Worst of all, the OTHER customers on the towers that the highest of the high end users are calling about bad service. Soo000, how would you like to be a competitor here, knowing that I'm gonna give you the highest of the bw hogs? What are YOU gonna do to stay in business? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Guess it cmes down to what you are selling and what does it cost you to do business. First f, you are selling a simle internet conection for a casual user. If you want you can squeeze them fr every little bit. I wonder why you have to charge them more, if you are being billed at the 95% My understanding is the 95 percentile is a snap shot at peak time and the top 5% lobbed of to come up with your usage. What this means to me is that on wed evening at 8PM when you hit 9.543megs a second which is your highest usage, could be sunday morning or friday evening for that matter, they call that the peak and lob off 5% and bill you there. So on monday morning when you are going 4.5 or 2.2MBPS or sat evening when you hit 5 or 6 megs, there is no difference in cost to you. t's all under the peak. So why bother unless your true goal is to figure out how hard you can squeeze you sub. Which is not right or wrong, just your business not any ones elses. I have a sub that uploads a 250 meg file twice a day to my server and does this every day. If he was your sub how much would you charge them? George Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, OK, so now that we know who our heavy users are I have to come up with a couple of things. First, I have to figure out how many kbps a gig of download would be. Specifically, I've got a couple of customers doing 50 gigs per month. How many kbps does it take to generate that? We pay for our internet based on kbps. Next, what do we do for an overage fee? Currently it's set as $5 for the first gig, $10 for the second, $20 for the third etc. At 25 gigs the customer has a $5,000,000 bill. Sure that'll run off the abusers, but I'd rather find a more reasonable way to bill them. We have a business customer that legitimately uses 40 to 50 gig per --- message truncated --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives:
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Thanks Jeff, We're looking at those models right now. The one that's already in place is 60 gigs for $350. Looks like 10 gigs will go to $100. And something similar in the middle. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Marlon , why the additive pricing for additional Gigs? Why wouldn't you just charge x$ per gig, since that is essentially what you are being charged by your upstream. If someone is using an average of 161 kbps constantly for a month, that sounds a lot like a T-1. Speakeasy is doing T-1s to the Internet for $399, others are doing SDSL at $250-299 per month, so if you are in the neighborhood, that should be expected. Anothe thing to think about is tiering your pricing 4 Gigs$49 10 Gigs $99 50 Gigs $299 or something like that. John Thomas Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, OK, so now that we know who our heavy users are I have to come up with a couple of things. First, I have to figure out how many kbps a gig of download would be. Specifically, I've got a couple of customers doing 50 gigs per month. How many kbps does it take to generate that? We pay for our internet based on kbps. Next, what do we do for an overage fee? Currently it's set as $5 for the first gig, $10 for the second, $20 for the third etc. At 25 gigs the customer has a $5,000,000 bill. Sure that'll run off the abusers, but I'd rather find a more reasonable way to bill them. We have a business customer that legitimately uses 40 to 50 gig per month. We just moved them from $75 to $350 per month (matched the t-1 price they pay in another town). They don't feel abused and I feel more comfortable about their usage. We bumped them up to 60 gigs included. I have another customer that's at 10 gigs now (our included limit is 4). We talked about an appropriate rate of increase. Under our standard levels, they'd more than double their bill. If we hit them with a couple of hundred in billing they'd go elsewhere. We would, however, like to dig a little bit deeper into their back pocket. I talked with them a bit about our need to recover costs based on their usage etc. They said if we hit $100 to $125 they'd not have a problem with that. On our end we have two problems. One, we pay for internet based on usage. The more they use the more we pay. Our costs were up 15% last month. The other, maybe worse issue, is that we have to increase the capacity to towers that have heavy users on them. Possibly to the point of a dedicated ap to cover just a customer or three. Now we're really talking bucks and spectrum issues etc. My original idea was that if a person went over by a gig or two we'd ding them a few dollars as a shot across the bow kind of thing. Around 50 of our 400 users are going over the new 4 gig level though. Some will fix that by getting postini and dropping the spam. Some will fix that by getting the kids to turn off the file sharing programs. And some are legitimately using that much data. In the end, we don't want to run off people if we can help it. Those at the 30 to 50 gig level will probably leave us for other services, but that's gonna be ok. They mess things up for everyone around them. Better that my competitors have customers like that than we do. For all of the rest, we need to recover our costs, and hopefully make a little extra money on them. S, my new idea is, gigs 5 through 10 would be at $5 per month. Gigs 10 through 20 at $10 per gig. Over 20, call for a price and we'll work something out that works for all of us. We really need it to naturally hit around $350 at the 50 gig level to match what we did with the first big customer. Thougths Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] once again, several of the key...
...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default maximum is 1023. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. - Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low priority traffic when there is a high demand for high priority traffic. - Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and video. (MAP can increase VoIP capacity by as much as 500%) - Auto or configurable maximum cell distance - Automatic distance learning: Per SU Distance Learning mechanism controlled by the AU enables each SU to adapt its Acknowledge timeout to its actual distance from the AU, minimizing delays in the wireless link. - Configurable threshold for lost beacon watchdog - Intelligent ATPC (The algorithm is controlled by the AU that calculates for each received frame the average SNR at which it receives transmissions from the specific SU. The average
RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
I will GUARANTEE Jeremy Davis can have you up and running in just a few minutes! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573-247-9980 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I know that they (and Butch) claimed it was No...I think you are confusing me with someone else. :-) I have told MANY people that proxy service on MT is riddled with problems, not the least of which is speed. One of the first things you had me help you with was removing the proxy server on the MT. Having said that, it is possible to build a squid proxy (outside the MT) that can actually make things faster. But, as you said, perception will be that it is slower (sometimes), so the reality isn't relevant. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
LOL, Yeah, I read that Patrick. Guess I'll have to see it to actually understand it fully. I think of it more like talking in a crowded room. The background noise makes it hard to talk. We can make up for that in several ways. One, what we usually do today, everyone keeps their voices down (max of 4 watts :-), we cup our hands over our ears (directionalizing our antennas), and when someone beside us is talking, we wait for them to stop before we start. Well, all it takes is one jerk in the room to start talking a little louder, then everyone around him has to crank up the volume. It keeps going till everyone is talking as loudly as they can. Then we've moved from the dining room to the bar room :-). Once in the bar room the old tricks just don't work as well as they used to. We can adjust to our little heart's content, but in the end, we just move to the talk when we want to talk model. I actually watched that with some amusement last week. Had a group of 7 or 8 people around a table in a back room. All drinking beer and eating pizza. The guys were talking about elk hunting and the gals were talking about some inane topic that I didn't pay attention to. grin It was funny. each group was talking clear across the table, each with it's own topics and each just talking over the other. Me, I was stuck in the middle of it and I couldn't track either conversation worth a hoot! I caught a little here and a little there, from both sides. I'd have happily downgraded to the ability to track at least one conversation correctly :-). Not picking on the product or the methodology. I'm just tossing some ideas against the wall to see what'll stick. If some of my ideas prove valuable, use them. If not, forget them! grin Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived This is my point Marlon, your beef is based on erroneous assumptions because you are still are talking like it is a basic wifi radio. It is not. Have you not read any of the posts about how the CSAM is able to be modified or adjustable? As I have said and I'll try to say it again, you can adjust many ways. The mechanism you are used with all your low end stuff to leaves you entirely at the mercy of others...you have no ability to make adjustments. With VL you do. Polling in VL would BE A DOWNGRADE. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes
RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Do you have the option of changing to a service where you pay a certain amount per month for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have the capability to burst beyond that for an additional price? In that model, QoS becomes critical and you can limit your customers based upon their rate-class and either deny or very carefully measure how much you burst. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Thanks! To you and your's too! Yeah, I'm working on it. Right now we're in talks with the heavy users to see what amounts won't run them off but will make up the difference between the 4 gig included model and what they are really consuming. I'm sure we'll run some off. But the goal isn't to chase them away. It's really to get them paying for what they are really using. Best of both worlds. Keep the customer and upsell them based on real world data. Those that won't upsell, will move to someone else and totally screw up the customers on their ap's and their bandwidth needs. In the end, my customers win. See how clever I really am? I've got some folks here arguing about black and white. All the while I'm working in shades of the rainbow! I'd better remember that next time I let myself get sucked into a my dad can beat up your dad argument! hehehehe Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi Marlon, Merry Christmas to you and your family! Just a thought, you might want to fire those 9 customers. You could also rate-limit them down to 56K and see how long they stick around. Jeff -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Date: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 pm Size: 3K To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cause it takes just 9 uers at 50 gigs per month to double my BW costs. At $35 per month in service fees, the 50 gig user chews up more than 10% of my costs. He needs to pay more. Or, he needs to get his service from you. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Right now, we have 9 users over 10 gigs per month. That means that 5% of my customers are more than, much more than, 5% of my bw costs. The average person is using less than 2 gigs. Worst of all, the OTHER customers on the towers that the highest of the high end users are calling about bad service. Soo000, how would you like to be a competitor here, knowing that I'm gonna give you the highest of the bw hogs? What are YOU gonna do to stay in business? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Guess it cmes down to what you are selling and what does it cost you to do business. First f, you are selling a simle internet conection for a casual user. If you want you can squeeze them fr every little bit. I wonder why you have to charge them more, if you are being billed at the 95% My understanding is the 95 percentile is a snap shot at peak time and the top 5% lobbed of to come up with your usage. What this means to me is that on wed evening at 8PM when you hit 9.543megs a second which is your highest usage, could be sunday morning or friday evening for that matter, they call that the peak and lob off 5% and bill you there. So on monday morning when you are going 4.5 or 2.2MBPS or sat evening when you hit 5 or 6 megs, there is no difference in cost to you. t's all under the peak. So why bother unless your true goal is to figure out how hard you can squeeze you sub. Which is not right or wrong, just your business not any ones elses. I have a sub that uploads a 250 meg file twice a day to my server and does this every day. If he was your sub how much would you charge them? George Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, OK, so now that we know who our heavy users are I have to come up with a couple of things. First, I have to figure out how many kbps a gig of download would be. Specifically, I've got a couple of customers
RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
I second that. Jeremy Rocks! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian I will GUARANTEE Jeremy Davis can have you up and running in just a few minutes! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573-247-9980 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Hello Patrick, With all due respect I don't think anyone here doubts the Alvarion VL is not simply a plain vanilla CSMA product. However, unfortunately the end result is the same when deployed in a RF hostile environment. All the items you list below while impressive are of little use in RF hostile environments. Believe me I wish this wasn't the case as I'd love to make use of some of the many nifty VL features. Unfortunately until VL makes the turn and offers the tools required in today's unlicensed fixed wireless world it is best suited for bursty, best effort applications. The VL can scream in the right environment, but unfortunately the days of friendly RF and clean unlicensed airways are long gone in many markets and disappearing quickly in the rural markets as well. As unlicensed users we require greater flexibility out of the products we purchase not less flexibility. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default maximum is 1023. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. - Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
It's designed to burst. That gives us a relatively low monthly cost with really fast service. So we pay based on usage. But it can, and does, burst very high. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps Are you paying extra for bursting, or just the overall bandwidth used? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps But a cahing server if you can't afford the bandwidth. Seriously, your model, the old model, is about dead and buried. Cache serves are great. When I used to use one it saved me about 25% on my bandwidth costs. We tried to do this with the MT routers, but they actually seemed to slow things down. I know that they (and Butch) claimed it was really faster. However, the look and feel was noticably slower, and perception sometimes trumps reality. I've been thinking of putting some in again. How much does it cost to watch a movie across the net using your system? No idea. But it's an up and coming reality. I see it as having an even bigger impact on the network than Napster did. And this time, there's cool new technology anyone's going to be able to move to to help deal with the usage issues. AND bandwidth costs don't seem to be sliding down much, if at all, these days. The last 12 to 18 months seem to have stablized things, at least around here. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Wrong answer, It should be the other way around. Because we don't bit charge, we manage our network to accomadate our users needs. I would imagine that if you were here telling your subs that they had to pay more, they would be coming this way. Yeppers. They can and they will. But not all of them. Only the bandwidth hogs. Look at it like this, choke a customer to 512k instead of 2000k. Is that customer going to do any less on the network? Nope. He's gonna do what he wanted to do all alone. It'll just take him longer. I've got almost 400 broadband users on my network. At 512k that means I'd need 200ish mbps to take care of them if they all used it all the time. Instead, we're actually averaging about 1.5 in, .5 out on the main site. .8 in and .2 out here in Odessa. So my 400 broadband users are averaging 2.5 megs in and 1 out. That's a LOT better than even the 10 megs you'll need if my top ten users move to your service. AND when selling speed, you are in direct competion with the companies that own the bulk of the network. Who wants to try to compete agains the telco or the cable co? Yikes. Just for kicks, lets look at the last 7 days here on my network: Odessa: Max In: 3.18 Mb Average In: 1.22 Mb Current In: 1.02 Mb Max Out: 737.05 Kb Average Out: 275.54 Kb Current Out: 172.59 Kb Ephrata: Max In: 6.53 Mb Average In: 1.69 Mb Current In: 2.04 Mb Max Out: 2.35 Mb Average Out: 479.40 Kb Current Out: 823.21 Kb So, even at this rate, I'm still on track for a max usage of 400 users vs. your 20 users at 512k. AND I don't HAVE to try to provide that 512k for all of my users. Sure they expect that today, heck, many get mad when they don't see the 2000k they usually do. I can honestly tell them that I'm not selling speed. I'm selling capacity. For me, adding speed is fairly cheap. Adding capacity costs too much. I'm not scared of my subs usage, I've been building out specifically for their future high usage needs. You should be scared of this. At some point you'll have to put a limit on them. Ever figured out how many 128k users it takes to tie up a $500 per month t-1??? At $30 to $40 per month the numbers just don't work. Now, don't go telling me about your amazing $20 per mbps bandwith deal. Cause we BOTH know that it's not really costing you that. There are also transport fees etc. that have to be figured in to get an apples to apples comparison. Sure I pay $200 per meg of usage here in Odessa. But
Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
- Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default maximum is 1023. mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. mks: Some of my new wifi gear has the ability to tune for distances. It's a great feature and it's amazing how much of a difference it can make. - Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low priority traffic when there is a high demand for high priority traffic. mks: Cool. - Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
- Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I know that they (and Butch) claimed it was No...I think you are confusing me with someone else. :-) I have told MANY people that proxy service on MT is riddled with problems, not the least of which is speed. One of the first things you had me help you with was removing the proxy server on the MT. Yeah, I know you took it off for me. As I recall the conversation you said that we could do some testing that would show that it really did speed things up. But it also caused a delay when the page was starting to load and that made it feel slower. Did I get this wrong? Having said that, it is possible to build a squid proxy (outside the MT) that can actually make things faster. But, as you said, perception will be that it is slower (sometimes), so the reality isn't relevant. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
- Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps Do you have the option of changing to a service where you pay a certain amount per month for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have the capability to burst beyond that for an additional price? At one location, maybe. At the other one, no. Realistically, what we're doing is working very well for us. I just need to find a way to deal with some over the top users. And EVERYONE has to deal with them in one way or another. I'm trying to be a bit more creative maybe. In that model, QoS becomes critical and you can limit your customers based upon their rate-class and either deny or very carefully measure how much you burst. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Thanks! To you and your's too! Yeah, I'm working on it. Right now we're in talks with the heavy users to see what amounts won't run them off but will make up the difference between the 4 gig included model and what they are really consuming. I'm sure we'll run some off. But the goal isn't to chase them away. It's really to get them paying for what they are really using. Best of both worlds. Keep the customer and upsell them based on real world data. Those that won't upsell, will move to someone else and totally screw up the customers on their ap's and their bandwidth needs. In the end, my customers win. See how clever I really am? I've got some folks here arguing about black and white. All the while I'm working in shades of the rainbow! I'd better remember that next time I let myself get sucked into a my dad can beat up your dad argument! hehehehe Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi Marlon, Merry Christmas to you and your family! Just a thought, you might want to fire those 9 customers. You could also rate-limit them down to 56K and see how long they stick around. Jeff -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Date: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 pm Size: 3K To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cause it takes just 9 uers at 50 gigs per month to double my BW costs. At $35 per month in service fees, the 50 gig user chews up more than 10% of my costs. He needs to pay more. Or, he needs to get his service from you. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Right now, we have 9 users over 10 gigs per month. That means that 5% of my customers are more than, much more than, 5% of my bw costs. The average person is using less than 2 gigs. Worst of all, the OTHER customers on the towers that the highest of the high end users are calling about bad service. Soo000, how would you like to be a competitor here, knowing that I'm gonna give you the highest of the bw hogs? What are YOU gonna do to stay in business? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Guess it cmes down to what you are selling and what does it cost you to do business. First f, you are selling a simle internet conection for a casual user. If you want you can squeeze them fr every little bit. I wonder why you have to charge them more, if you are being billed at the 95% My understanding is the 95 percentile is a snap shot at peak time and the top 5% lobbed of to come up with your usage. What this means to me is that on wed evening at 8PM when you hit 9.543megs a second which is your highest usage, could be sunday morning or friday evening for that matter, they call that the peak and lob off 5% and bill you there. So on monday morning when you are going 4.5 or 2.2MBPS or sat evening when you hit 5 or 6 megs, there is no difference in cost to you. t's all under the peak. So why bother unless your true goal is to figure out how hard you can squeeze you sub. Which is not right or wrong, just your business
Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Hopefully you understand all of those:) Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below, but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not resolve the issue. I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged. While it's true that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK packets, meaning a double whammy. During periods of high noise or repetitive noise, not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to beleive that the transmission was accepted. After so many of thse failures, it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again. While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in cascade-type failure. I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more ms interruption while this cascade occurs... repettive noise, rate renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block. I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing this, as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits. There, of course, are polling type systems, and so on. Each has its perceived strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances. Thus, I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with the works will have. I have seen real world demonstrations of how differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings for many of those settings performs dramatically different. But not understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are part of the nature of 802.11 based systems. I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression, which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall life and performance of the system. I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius kind of situations - distance, colocated small cells, etc. And then the high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time, waiting for ACK packets. Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things have. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium immediately after a time equal to DIFS. The default min. value is 15. The default maximum is 1023. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance
RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps
You could route your high traffic folks out the one connection, and ratchet their committed rate down to protect your peak usage periods. They could burst when bandwidth was available without hurting you. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps Do you have the option of changing to a service where you pay a certain amount per month for a certain amount of bandwidth, and then have the capability to burst beyond that for an additional price? At one location, maybe. At the other one, no. Realistically, what we're doing is working very well for us. I just need to find a way to deal with some over the top users. And EVERYONE has to deal with them in one way or another. I'm trying to be a bit more creative maybe. In that model, QoS becomes critical and you can limit your customers based upon their rate-class and either deny or very carefully measure how much you burst. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Thanks! To you and your's too! Yeah, I'm working on it. Right now we're in talks with the heavy users to see what amounts won't run them off but will make up the difference between the 4 gig included model and what they are really consuming. I'm sure we'll run some off. But the goal isn't to chase them away. It's really to get them paying for what they are really using. Best of both worlds. Keep the customer and upsell them based on real world data. Those that won't upsell, will move to someone else and totally screw up the customers on their ap's and their bandwidth needs. In the end, my customers win. See how clever I really am? I've got some folks here arguing about black and white. All the while I'm working in shades of the rainbow! I'd better remember that next time I let myself get sucked into a my dad can beat up your dad argument! hehehehe Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Hi Marlon, Merry Christmas to you and your family! Just a thought, you might want to fire those 9 customers. You could also rate-limit them down to 56K and see how long they stick around. Jeff -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Date: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:29 pm Size: 3K To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cause it takes just 9 uers at 50 gigs per month to double my BW costs. At $35 per month in service fees, the 50 gig user chews up more than 10% of my costs. He needs to pay more. Or, he needs to get his service from you. Just be glad you aren't a competitor of mine. Right now, we have 9 users over 10 gigs per month. That means that 5% of my customers are more than, much more than, 5% of my bw costs. The average person is using less than 2 gigs. Worst of all, the OTHER customers on the towers that the highest of the high end users are calling about bad service. Soo000, how would you like to be a competitor here, knowing that I'm gonna give you the highest of the bw hogs? What are YOU gonna do to stay in business? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Guess it cmes down to what you are selling and what does it cost you to do business. First f, you are selling a simle internet conection for a casual user. If you want you can squeeze them fr every little bit. I wonder why you have to charge them more, if you are being billed at the 95% My understanding is the 95 percentile is a snap shot at peak time and the top 5% lobbed of to come up with your usage. What this means
RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
How does one get in touch with Jeremy Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian I will GUARANTEE Jeremy Davis can have you up and running in just a few minutes! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573-247-9980 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. PL: Marlon, The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not Used... So one could set the value to 0 and that essentially tuns off the contention mechanism. BTW, regarding ATPC, I think we can all expect ATPC to be mandatory for any new UL frequency. Like it will be for 3650MHz (it was required in the initial RO). Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. mks: Some of my new wifi gear has the ability to tune for distances. It's a great feature and it's amazing how much of a difference it can make. - Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low priority traffic when there is a high demand for high priority traffic. mks: Cool. - Layer-2 traffic prioritization based on IEEE 802.1p and layer-3 traffic prioritization based on either IP ToS Precedence (RFC791) or DSCP (RFC2474). It also supports traffic prioritization based on UDP and/or TCP port ranges. In addition, it may use the optional Wireless Link Prioritization (WLP) feature to fully support delay sensitive applications, enabling Multimedia Application Prioritization (MAP) for high performance voice and video. (MAP can increase VoIP capacity by as much as 500%) mks: That's good. As long as we have clear air for the transmit cycle.. - Auto or
RE: [WISPA]( FreeRadius) Jeremy Davis info
Jeremy Davis @ (614)347-6229 or by e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian How does one get in touch with Jeremy Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian I will GUARANTEE Jeremy Davis can have you up and running in just a few minutes! Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:35 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian Anyone out there that can help me set this up? I am a Windows guy and have successfully installed Linux several times but have not figured out how to install FreeRadius successfully. If I had the time I might be able to do it but I thought it might go faster with a little expertise. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573-247-9980 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Mark, yes that is true with basic CSMA/CA, but VL, again, allows adjustments of parameters to prevent what you fear. For example, the ack time is first based on the Max Cell Distance setting you set, so the radio knows to expect, so to speak, an ack from each station within a very specific time and it knows the ack from each station will be different (it 'learns' that info). So if the ack does not come when expected, the radio will attempt a retrans, but it will not cascade as you fear. Why, because you are able to set the maximum number of retries. Not only can you do that, but you can set different values for that retry number for high priority versus low priority traffic. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... Hopefully you understand all of those:) Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below, but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not resolve the issue. I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged. While it's true that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK packets, meaning a double whammy. During periods of high noise or repetitive noise, not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to beleive that the transmission was accepted. After so many of thse failures, it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again. While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in cascade-type failure. I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more ms interruption while this cascade occurs... repettive noise, rate renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block. I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing this, as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits. There, of course, are polling type systems, and so on. Each has its perceived strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances. Thus, I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with the works will have. I have seen real world demonstrations of how differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings for many of those settings performs dramatically different. But not understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are part of the nature of 802.11 based systems. I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression, which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall life and performance of the system. I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius kind of situations - distance, colocated small cells, etc. And then the high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time, waiting for ACK packets. Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things have. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Mark, ...also, in terms of your question about packet aggregation, BreezeACCESS VL employs very aggressive concatenation. That is why it delivers over 40,000 packets per second performance of small packets (such as 64k frames). The radio also allows setting the Maximum Concatenated Frame Size, as well as disabling the concatenation feature. Frame sizes (in software version 4.0 and hardware rev. C or higher) can be aggregated 4032 bytes. As well, you can configure the max number of concatenated frames. Finally, the concatenation process is performed separately by the AU for each subscriber radio. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... Hopefully you understand all of those:) Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below, but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not resolve the issue. I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged. While it's true that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK packets, meaning a double whammy. During periods of high noise or repetitive noise, not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to beleive that the transmission was accepted. After so many of thse failures, it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again. While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in cascade-type failure. I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more ms interruption while this cascade occurs... repettive noise, rate renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block. I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing this, as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits. There, of course, are polling type systems, and so on. Each has its perceived strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances. Thus, I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with the works will have. I have seen real world demonstrations of how differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings for many of those settings performs dramatically different. But not understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are part of the nature of 802.11 based systems. I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression, which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall life and performance of the system. I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius kind of situations - distance, colocated small cells, etc. And then the high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time, waiting for ACK packets. Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things have. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that make VL NOT a basic CSMA/CA product. - Configurable Minimum and Maximum Contention Windows: The BreezeACCESS VL system uses a special mechanism based on detecting the presence of a carrier signal and analyzing the information contained in the transmissions of the AU to estimate the activity of other SUs served by the AU.) The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not used and that the unit will attempt to access the medium
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
I should also note our support of jumbo packets of 1600 bytes + 4 bytes of CRC. If VLAN is used the length is the same 1600 + 4 bytes. This applies to version 4.0.23 or higher. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... Mark, ...also, in terms of your question about packet aggregation, BreezeACCESS VL employs very aggressive concatenation. That is why it delivers over 40,000 packets per second performance of small packets (such as 64k frames). The radio also allows setting the Maximum Concatenated Frame Size, as well as disabling the concatenation feature. Frame sizes (in software version 4.0 and hardware rev. C or higher) can be aggregated 4032 bytes. As well, you can configure the max number of concatenated frames. Finally, the concatenation process is performed separately by the AU for each subscriber radio. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... Hopefully you understand all of those:) Part of Marlon's issue with the basic 802.11 system is talked about below, but of course, since it's there, the tuneability helps, but does not resolve the issue. I beleive Marlon's reference to CSMA / CA is two pronged. While it's true that recieved noise will block transmission, it also blocks reception of ACK packets, meaning a double whammy. During periods of high noise or repetitive noise, not only does the AP wait to transmit, it then fails to beleive that the transmission was accepted. After so many of thse failures, it then renegotiates the rate at which it's connected and tries again. While these are not the same process, they do link to each and occur in cascade-type failure. I have seen data on a nearly clear channel suddenly have a 200, 300 or more ms interruption while this cascade occurs... repettive noise, rate renegotiations and contention window increases, and ack failures from weak clients all cause all clients to have that momentary communication block. I believe there have been quite a number of interesting means of addressing this, as I recall some products from Trango don't ack packets, but instead allows the higher layer controls to ensure data integrity, while some versions seem to have a mechanism to request retransmits. There, of course, are polling type systems, and so on. Each has its perceived strengths and weaknesses. Overall, while what you post below is quite interesting, I doubt that most of us (including me) fully grasp what tuning each of these parameters does in real life and why you'd use them and under what circumstances. Thus, I really don't know what effect in real life all this ability to muck with the works will have. I have seen real world demonstrations of how differring equipment using the exact same hardware, but different settings for many of those settings performs dramatically different. But not understanding the full picture of what each does, I cannot estimate in my mind their worth, nor how much they alleviate the various issues that are part of the nature of 802.11 based systems. I also don't see any mention of packet aggregation or hardware compression, which would be wonderful things to have, and would improve the overall life and performance of the system. I believe what most of the respondents have at issue here is really the reliance upon 802.11, which is simply NOT anywhere near great when it comes to WISP use. Yes, it appears that you can raise the threshold for ignoring noise, and you can tune the system to better cope with varioius kind of situations - distance, colocated small cells, etc. And then the high inefficiency that 802.11 introduces with it's ack mechanism and the large amount of access point time spent doing nothing but passing time, waiting for ACK packets. Please understand, I am neither criticizing nor praising, it just appears to me that people are talking past each other, and that neither I nor at least some of the readers, really understand what real life value these things have. +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:20 AM Subject: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... ...features that
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
Marlon, I also just realized you asked what the Lost Beacon Threshold setting is about. In standard CSMA/CA radios, the APs will reset if their beacons are not received within a certain window, which can cause havoc on the network. This can happen in high interference environments. With BreezeACCESS VL an operator can set the time value for the Lost Beacon Threshold. From the manual: When [an AU] is unable to send beacon frames for a predetermined period of time, such as in the case of interference, the AU resets itself. The Lost Beacons Transmission Threshold parameter represents the number of consecutive lost beacons after which the unit will reset itself. The range for this parameter is 100 - 1000 or 0. When the parameter is set to 0 this feature is disabled, i.e. internal refresh will never be performed. The default value is 218. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self interference in a cellular deployment(many tower sites in a region). The only products I'm aware of that cooperate properly in a cellular deployment are minimally GPS capable, and the advanced products that support things like hand-off or N:1 deployment go beyond that with 2-way base station to base station communication. Technologies such as wimax, 3G, fiber networks, etc. all use GPS to to improve efficiency and operation. IMO VL may still be a good product to deploy, but just not in a cellular or colocated deployment. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Charles, Although your comment is true, and you left out on the fly flexibilty, what people want is not always the best value, at the end of the day with all things considered. The value of consistent availability and right out of the box deployment is PRICELIST! This doesn't only save cost of installer labor, but also management labor in purchasing and aquisition. I'll share something from my experience that I find is Ironic as heck. I always looked at Alvarion as the high end market gear, but its being a stronger residential play. I recently have done a lot with War/StarV3 for high end business, mostly Point to Point links, because I can get good speed, flexibilty to reach the neighboring building, and great testing tools with things like Iperf BUILT-IN able to test Ethernet connections as well as RF conclusively link by link, as hops increase as the backbone mesh grows. Alvarion is also a great product for high end business, which I'm also using in some cases, but I have a higher cost to accomplish that, since StarOS has dual radio slots. Where Alvarion has now shown undisputable advantage based on its new low price, is in its residential application. The difference between $185 and $285, is almost nothing compared to my time savings in operations. The ease of opening the box and installing a VL is unmatched. What VL does
Re: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
OK, so when we set the value to 0, how does the ap decide who it's going to listen to and when it'll talk? Is this the same as turning the radio into a polling mechanism? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. PL: Marlon, The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not Used... So one could set the value to 0 and that essentially tuns off the contention mechanism. BTW, regarding ATPC, I think we can all expect ATPC to be mandatory for any new UL frequency. Like it will be for 3650MHz (it was required in the initial RO). Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. mks: Some of my new wifi gear has the ability to tune for distances. It's a great feature and it's amazing how much of a difference it can make. - Low Priority Traffic Minimum Percent feature ensures a selectable certain amount of the traffic is reserved to low priority packets to prevent starvation of low
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
This is a bit misleading and doesn't answer Marlon's question. Entering a 0 value in the VL contention window algorithm setting will indeed turn off the VL contention mechanism, but it will do little for the client behind the VL radio trying to pass data. Glossy advertisement buzz words like contention window algorithm will not solve the problem Marlon describes. Relocating to a new channel, band and/or polarity is a good start to getting your client back up and running in such an event. Throw in a RX threshold and you'll even have a better chance at keeping that client! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. PL: Marlon, The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not Used... So one could set the value to 0 and that essentially tuns off the contention mechanism. BTW, regarding ATPC, I think we can all expect ATPC to be mandatory for any new UL frequency. Like it will be for 3650MHz (it was required in the initial RO). Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when competing for services. However, this reduces the overall achievable throughput of the cell. In certain situations, the operator may decide to improve the overall throughput by reducing the slot size below the value required for full fairness. This means that when there is competition for bandwidth, the back-off algorithm will give an advantage to SUs that are located closer to the AU. The Cell Distance Parameters menu includes the following parameters: fairness factor, per SU distance learning, show cell distance parameters. mks: Some of my new wifi gear has the ability to tune for distances. It's a great feature and it's amazing how much of a difference it can make. - Low
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Give the VL dual polarity via software control and you might have something worth taking note about. Throw in dual band ability and now you're on the right track. As it sits now Alvarion is requiring you to visit every site you have a VL radio and rotate it 90* in the event you need to do so. Sounds like fun! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self interference in a cellular deployment(many tower sites in a region). The only products I'm aware of that cooperate properly in a cellular deployment are minimally GPS capable, and the advanced products that support things like hand-off or N:1 deployment go beyond that with 2-way base station to base station communication. Technologies such as wimax, 3G, fiber networks, etc. all use GPS to to improve efficiency and operation. IMO VL may still be a good product to deploy, but just not in a cellular or colocated deployment. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Charles, Although your comment is true, and you left out on the fly flexibilty, what people want is not always the best value, at the end of the day with all things considered. The value of consistent availability and right out of the box deployment is PRICELIST! This doesn't only save cost of installer labor, but also management labor in purchasing and aquisition. I'll share something from my experience that I find is Ironic as heck. I always looked at Alvarion as the high end market gear, but its being a stronger residential play. I recently have done a lot with War/StarV3 for high end business, mostly Point to Point links, because I can get good speed, flexibilty to reach the neighboring building, and great testing
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
marlon, I have to disagree, and state the opposite. I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS to be able to survive the noise, with better SNRs. The problem occurs when DSSS is not enough to get above the noise. When the noise is other OFDM or Wifi contention gear, possibly louder than your own signal, using CSMA/CA actually performs much better in the severe interference environments. The reason is TDD is guaranteed to transmit during the noisy period, some percentage of time. With CSMA/CA the radio waits for FREE time, or at minimum retransmits until it gets FREE spectrum. This can increase latency significantly, but it does reduce packet loss, which is more important. TDD w/ ARQ, can be even better, provided one has a high end radio, that can be engineered for both ARQ and optimal link quality. But not all ARQ radio can be optimized for best RSSI. I'd take 8 db of higher RSSI, than ARQ, because their is no need for ARQ, if you are adequately above the noise. Alvarion's strength is it empowers an operator to engineer a more durable link, based on antenna quality and flexibility. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration, contention levels, etc. It is more sophisticated than your basic polling and more efficient. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Agreed. But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset thing is that can be delivered. CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really needed? And what areas of your business or network also prevent the CIR Full QOS guarantee from being realized? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived My thoughts exactly. If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today. Without those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in RF hostile environments. The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon. A jolly elf maybe, neophyte never... CSMA/CA. But the MAC has been substantially altered, especially with 4.0 and the WLP (wireless link prioritization) feature where all stations can be made to wait while those stations with spooled up voice can release their packets regardless of where they are in the cell. Also, in VL an operator can adjust numerous values of the CSMA/CA, such as contention window duration,
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
- Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Wrong answer, It should be the other way around. Because we don't bit charge, we manage our network to accomadate our users needs. I would imagine that if you were here telling your subs that they had to pay more, they would be coming this way. Yeppers. They can and they will. But not all of them. Only the bandwidth hogs. Look at it like this, choke a customer to 512k instead of 2000k. Is that customer going to do any less on the network? Nope. He's gonna do what he wanted to do all alone. It'll just take him longer. I've got almost 400 broadband users on my network. At 512k that means I'd need 200ish mbps to take care of them if they all used it all the time. Instead, we're actually averaging about 1.5 in, .5 out on the main site. .8 in and .2 out here in Odessa. So my 400 broadband users are averaging 2.5 megs in and 1 out. That's a LOT better than even the 10 megs you'll need if my top ten users move to your service. AND when selling speed, you are in direct competion with the companies that own the bulk of the network. Who wants to try to compete agains the telco or the cable co? Yikes. Just for kicks, lets look at the last 7 days here on my network: Odessa: Max In: 3.18 Mb Average In: 1.22 Mb Current In: 1.02 Mb Max Out: 737.05 Kb Average Out: 275.54 Kb Current Out: 172.59 Kb Ephrata: Max In: 6.53 Mb Average In: 1.69 Mb Current In: 2.04 Mb Max Out: 2.35 Mb Average Out: 479.40 Kb Current Out: 823.21 Kb So, even at this rate, I'm still on track for a max usage of 400 users vs. your 20 users at 512k. AND I don't HAVE to try to provide that 512k for all of my users. Sure they expect that today, heck, many get mad when they don't see the 2000k they usually do. I can honestly tell them that I'm not selling speed. I'm selling capacity. For me, adding speed is fairly cheap. Adding capacity costs too much. I'm not scared of my subs usage, I've been building out specifically for their future high usage needs. You should be scared of this. At some point you'll have to put a limit on them. Ever figured out how many 128k users it takes to tie up a $500 per month t-1??? At $30 to $40 per month the numbers just don't work. Now, don't go telling me about your amazing $20 per mbps bandwith deal. Cause we BOTH know that it's not really costing you that. There are also transport fees etc. that have to be figured in to get an apples to apples comparison. Sure I pay $200 per meg of usage here in Odessa. But I also pay $800 per month for the circuit that'll carry those megs! Nah, I've been running wide open full bore as fast as the ap will let the subs go since the very beginning. And I have yet to have anyone take advantage of or break the system. Of course, the person that does p2p does have to be attended to from time to time, we just slow their upload speeds and that usually solves the issue. Most of those people can't find enough stuff to download and those that do usually run out of disk space pretty quick. It's the upload that can be problematic. With almost 700 users, I've hardly ever seen my 15 meg pipe get 50% saturated. If I had to start telling my subs that they reached their bit usage limit, there would be one more thing that my competition cold use against me. In a market that has Qwest heavily pushing DSL and Charter with their cable modems package deal promotions, I think it's hard to try to exert limitations, especially the ones that make the subs pay more, without some negativity. George I have some new data. Let me first say that I agree with you. There probably would be some uproar in your customer base. However, have you read the TOS for Charter? They have a bit limit last I knew. And quest OWNS the backhaul etc. Trying to compete with them on speed and capacity issues will get harder and harder as time goes on. Now, for at least one of my heavy users. He subscribed to a service that automatically sent 2 to 4 movies per day to his kids. That explained his high usage right nicely. Davinci Code was almost 8 gigs. What are YOU gonna do when your users start to use this service? They are gonna say the same thing *I'd* say. I understand George, but I'm paying for 512k so you need to deliver 512k. It doesn't matter if I use it 24/7, that's the deal we made when I hired you to provide my internet. I've always know that usage was going to keep going up. As long as costs go down at the same rate as the usage goes up, we'll be ok. But what's a guy gonna do if the usage goes up faster than the rates go down? IPTV is coming guys. Your usage today is NOTHING compared to what it'll be in a few years. Our radio
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
So contention window algorithm is a glossy advertisement buzz word? Yeah, I'm sure thems some hot and sexy buzzwords there. Looks to me like that's about as dry and technically desciptive -- i.e. the ANTITHESIS of hype -- as well could do. Brad, if that's a BS glossy buzz word, then exactly WHAT, pray tell, should we call such an algorithm? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:36 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... This is a bit misleading and doesn't answer Marlon's question. Entering a 0 value in the VL contention window algorithm setting will indeed turn off the VL contention mechanism, but it will do little for the client behind the VL radio trying to pass data. Glossy advertisement buzz words like contention window algorithm will not solve the problem Marlon describes. Relocating to a new channel, band and/or polarity is a good start to getting your client back up and running in such an event. Throw in a RX threshold and you'll even have a better chance at keeping that client! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. PL: Marlon, The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not Used... So one could set the value to 0 and that essentially tuns off the contention mechanism. BTW, regarding ATPC, I think we can all expect ATPC to be mandatory for any new UL frequency. Like it will be for 3650MHz (it was required in the initial RO). Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used by all units to calculate the size of the time slot, that must be the same for all units in the same sector. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is enabled, the AU uses the re-association message to send to each SU its estimated distance from the AU. The per-SU distance is used to calculate the ACK timeout to be used by the SU. When the Per SU Distance Learning option is disabled (or if it cannot be used because the SU uses a previous SW version that does not support this feature), the SU will use the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. The AU always uses the maximum cell distance to calculate the ACK timeout. It should be noted that if the size of the time slot used by all units is adapted to the distance of the farthest unit, then no unit will have an advantage when
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Almost as fun as predicting what product or policy Trango will discontinue or otherwise dramatically change next! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Give the VL dual polarity via software control and you might have something worth taking note about. Throw in dual band ability and now you're on the right track. As it sits now Alvarion is requiring you to visit every site you have a VL radio and rotate it 90* in the event you need to do so. Sounds like fun! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self interference in a cellular deployment(many tower sites in a region). The only products I'm aware of that cooperate properly in a cellular deployment are minimally GPS capable, and the advanced products that support things like hand-off or N:1 deployment go beyond that with 2-way base station to base station communication. Technologies such as wimax, 3G, fiber networks, etc. all use GPS to to improve efficiency and operation. IMO VL may still be a good product to deploy, but just not in a cellular or colocated deployment. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote: Charles, Although your comment is true, and you left out on the fly flexibilty, what people want is not always the best value, at the end of the day with all things considered. The value of consistent availability and right out of the box deployment is PRICELIST! This doesn't only save cost of installer labor, but also management labor in purchasing and aquisition. I'll share something
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
...okay, I went off the deep end there. It was wrong of me to insult the competition because I'm allowing myself to be baited. Sorry folks. Sorry Trango. Ghrr. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Almost as fun as predicting what product or policy Trango will discontinue or otherwise dramatically change next! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Give the VL dual polarity via software control and you might have something worth taking note about. Throw in dual band ability and now you're on the right track. As it sits now Alvarion is requiring you to visit every site you have a VL radio and rotate it 90* in the event you need to do so. Sounds like fun! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self interference in a cellular deployment(many tower sites in a region). The only products I'm aware of that cooperate properly in a cellular deployment are minimally GPS capable, and the advanced products that support things like hand-off or N:1 deployment go beyond that with 2-way base station to base station communication. Technologies such as wimax, 3G, fiber networks, etc. all use GPS to to improve efficiency and operation. IMO VL may still be a good product to deploy, but just not in a cellular or colocated deployment. Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Tom DeReggi wrote:
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Marlon, if that's the type of product your looking for, I'll save you the hassle of looking (and you can come back to this post in 5-10 years to make your conclusions on my recommendation) because your best best is to go with canopy or wait until a 5GHz 802.16e solution comes out(not likely soon). If Alvarion would get an actual ENGINEER to debate about their RF technology compared to others on-list, that would be the day :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Jon, LOL. Our engineers don't watch these threads and they probably never will and I wouldn't want them to. It's funny that this thread was started by a very happy Alvarion customer whom just broke the 1,000 cpe threshold with VL and he's doing the very things that aren't supposed to be possible according to some posting on this topic!! And the funny part of it is, VL displaced one of the products mentioned...performance went up, truck rolls went down, and he sleeps better at night!! This thread reminds me of a competitor slinging mud 2 years ago saying we couldn't build a 3 tower network in 5 square miles to connect 2,400 buildings...Blah blah sync sync... LOL. We not only built that network but it's a prime example of how if you KNOW WHAT YOURE DOING and are TRAINED AND CERTIFIED the product works like a charm. And if a wisp is building a scaling voip/data network canopy is not such a great solution so the hassle is in the details. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, if that's the type of product your looking for, I'll save you the hassle of looking (and you can come back to this post in 5-10 years to make your conclusions on my recommendation) because your best best is to go with canopy or wait until a 5GHz 802.16e solution comes out(not likely soon). If Alvarion would get an actual ENGINEER to debate about their RF technology compared to others on-list, that would be the day :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190).
RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key...
lol...rather than trying to change the subject Patrick, why not answer Marlon's question? Here it is to refresh your memory. Try to stay on topic. mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. Your answer was to change a setting in the VL radio and to imply problem solved! Yah, right! BTW, I'm not the only one scoffing at your Alvarion manual regurgitation. Twice today alone! Instead focus on the questions being presented. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... So contention window algorithm is a glossy advertisement buzz word? Yeah, I'm sure thems some hot and sexy buzzwords there. Looks to me like that's about as dry and technically desciptive -- i.e. the ANTITHESIS of hype -- as well could do. Brad, if that's a BS glossy buzz word, then exactly WHAT, pray tell, should we call such an algorithm? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:36 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... This is a bit misleading and doesn't answer Marlon's question. Entering a 0 value in the VL contention window algorithm setting will indeed turn off the VL contention mechanism, but it will do little for the client behind the VL radio trying to pass data. Glossy advertisement buzz words like contention window algorithm will not solve the problem Marlon describes. Relocating to a new channel, band and/or polarity is a good start to getting your client back up and running in such an event. Throw in a RX threshold and you'll even have a better chance at keeping that client! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] once again, several of the key... mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. PL: Marlon, The available values are 0, 7, 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511 and 1023. A value of 0 means that the contention window algorithm is not Used... So one could set the value to 0 and that essentially tuns off the contention mechanism. BTW, regarding ATPC, I think we can all expect ATPC to be mandatory for any new UL frequency. Like it will be for 3650MHz (it was required in the initial RO). Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mks: And what happens when we have someone light up a Wmux type system that's ALWAYS on? The time value won't make a difference since there will NEVER be totally clear air. - Cell Distance Mode feature: The higher the distance of an SU from the AU that is serving it, the higher the time it takes for messages sent by one of them to reach the other. To ensure appropriate services to all SUs regardless of their distance from the AU while maintaining a high overall performance level, two parameters should be adapted to the distances of SUs from the serving AU: The time that a unit waits for a response message before retransmission (ACK timeout) should take into account the round trip propagation delay between the AU and the SU (The one-way propagation delay at 5 GHz is 3.3 microseconds per km/5 microseconds per mile.). The higher the distance from the AU of the SU served by it, the higher the ACK timeout should be. The ACK timeout in microseconds is: 20+Distance (km)*2*3.3 or 20+Distance (miles)*2*5. To ensure fairness in the contention back-off algorithm between SUs located at different distances from the AU, the size of the time slot should also take into account the one-way propagation delay. The size of the time slot of all units in the cell should be proportional to the distance from the AU of the farthest SU served by it. The Cell Distance Mode parameter in the AU defines the method of computing distances. When set to Manual, the Maximum Cell Distance parameter should be configured with the estimated distance of the farthest SU served by the AU. When set to Automatic, the AU uses a special algorithm to estimate its distance from each of the SUs it serves, determine which SU is located the farthest and use the estimated distance of the farthest SU as the maximum cell distance. The value of the maximum cell distance parameter (either computed or configured manually) is transmitted in the beacon messages to all SUs served by the AU, and is used
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Well, they didn't give Mel Gibson the benefit of the doubt. Why should we you? grin Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived ...okay, I went off the deep end there. It was wrong of me to insult the competition because I'm allowing myself to be baited. Sorry folks. Sorry Trango. Ghrr. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Almost as fun as predicting what product or policy Trango will discontinue or otherwise dramatically change next! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Give the VL dual polarity via software control and you might have something worth taking note about. Throw in dual band ability and now you're on the right track. As it sits now Alvarion is requiring you to visit every site you have a VL radio and rotate it 90* in the event you need to do so. Sounds like fun! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self interference in a cellular deployment(many tower sites in a region). The only products I'm aware of that cooperate properly in a cellular deployment are minimally GPS capable, and the advanced products that support things like hand-off or N:1 deployment go beyond that
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
lolyou continue to assert this is about Trango vs. Alvarion and it is far from it. You appear threatened by Trango with comments like this. I've said from day one we are results driven. If Trango produces the results we are after then by golly we'll use Trango. If Alvarion produces the results we are after than by golly we'll use Alvarion. Guys like you only see the world through one prism; the company they work for. I'll ask you again Patrick; do you believe Alvarion makes the best solution for every need? You can't honestly say yes, can you? I'll be the first to admit my company is far from perfect and we absolutely do not have the best product for every application. What is troubling is you are unable to say the same! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Almost as fun as predicting what product or policy Trango will discontinue or otherwise dramatically change next! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Give the VL dual polarity via software control and you might have something worth taking note about. Throw in dual band ability and now you're on the right track. As it sits now Alvarion is requiring you to visit every site you have a VL radio and rotate it 90* in the event you need to do so. Sounds like fun! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Remember VLs will be shipping with support for optional manual horizontal Pol mounting, sometime early 2007 (Jan?). Not going to be a problem getting 6 VLs on a tower anymore, before even considering the 10Mhz channel option. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:50 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Oh Patrick, you couldn't resist Motorola is extremely conservative on the spec sheet. 4.21 Mbps Net typical where you get that? I got Advantage customers at 10 miles getting full 14 Mbps ...It may not be the most effective modulation, but is a very good compromise between performance and interference rejection. And don't negate the fact that GPS is a must have tool for Cell deployment, It saves you spectrum, tower space and I can play nice with other carriers using Canopy... Why you think all cell carriers rely on GPS ? Let me see a VL 6 60 deg Sector using only 60 Mhz of channels Let me see 3 VL Carriers sharing 1 tower Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Jon, With a proper channel plan that is just not the case, not to mention things like ATPC. Things like WiMAX use it because there you are dealing with small frequency allocations where every last ounce of efficiency needs to be found. In UL that is not the case since there is so much more spectrum to work with. Please don't try to tell me Canopy's use of GPS is good example of UL efficiency. We both know Canopy's use of GPS is more the reality of the fact that Canopy is always talking and has no ATPC so the GPS is used to keep it from stepping on itself. And speaking about efficiency, even the Canopy Advantage is a very inefficient modulation relative to something like VL. Advantage, but Motorola's own spec sheet, delivers 4.25mbps net typical, 14mbps max (to 1 mile) in a 20MHz channel. VL does over 30mbps net max with typical over the air in an LOS environment being something like 80% of that well over 1 mile. In any event, there exist too many examples to count of scaled VL networks with co-located cells say you are incorrect in your assertion that VL can't be built in a cellular topology. It is a silly thing to assert in fact. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 9:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived With VL, you still run into the issue of self
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Hello Tom, Alvarion's strength is it empowers an operator to engineer a more durable link, based on antenna quality and flexibility. Antenna quality I'll give you. Alvarion uses MTi antennas which by most all accounts builds a quality product. Flexibility? Not a chance. No Dual Polarity + No Dual Band = NO FLEXIBILITY! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived marlon, I have to disagree, and state the opposite. I've always been a fan of TDD, especially when combined with DSSS to be able to survive the noise, with better SNRs. The problem occurs when DSSS is not enough to get above the noise. When the noise is other OFDM or Wifi contention gear, possibly louder than your own signal, using CSMA/CA actually performs much better in the severe interference environments. The reason is TDD is guaranteed to transmit during the noisy period, some percentage of time. With CSMA/CA the radio waits for FREE time, or at minimum retransmits until it gets FREE spectrum. This can increase latency significantly, but it does reduce packet loss, which is more important. TDD w/ ARQ, can be even better, provided one has a high end radio, that can be engineered for both ARQ and optimal link quality. But not all ARQ radio can be optimized for best RSSI. I'd take 8 db of higher RSSI, than ARQ, because their is no need for ARQ, if you are adequately above the noise. Alvarion's strength is it empowers an operator to engineer a more durable link, based on antenna quality and flexibility. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why was it important for collocation then but not now? Hope you guys all had a great Christmas! Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I'd never call you a neophyte, Marlon.
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
I just wanted to weigh in here and add that filesharing and p2p is really a main driver of the isp business model today and we're going to have to do something to pull this in and make it equitable for everyone. If you think about this, what we're all doing here is paying for expensive dedicated service - eg: marlon's 10mbps pipe, my 45mbps pipe, or whatever - we're paying carriers and large network operators for truely unlimited service at the subscribed port speeds, and we pay a premium for it. In return, we are (usually) getting a quality that justifies the price (otherwise I'd just buy piles of $14.95/mo dsl circuits!). So what we then do is turn it around is add oversubscription to this model so that we can pay someone $400/mbps/month or whatever and then sell this for effectively $20/mbps/month. It used to be that the average broadband user would use say %15 or less of their sustained maximum transfer thruput - which means that they used their 1.5mbps or whatever at full rate for only brief periods of time. This allowed oversubscription to work effectively because the chances were often excellent that full rate transfers weren't being done by a signifigant percentage of others at the same time. But now with the growing demands of p2p/filesharing, this is broken. I routinely have customers now running full blast 24x7 throught the day and night with no letup or break ever and I strongly suspect that most if not all of it is simply wanton copyright violations and wasted downloads of stuff they won't ever even look at anyways. The field service calls I make for support purposes strongly support this notion because I usually get to see the customer pc and of the ones I see, more than %95 are just loaded up to the brim with ripped off songs and movies from limewire,kazaa,edonkey, you name it. The corresponding spyware/junkware infestations and crashing, slowdowns and malfunctions are just desserts of course, and I have never ever seen anyone just using these programs for 'legal purposes'. But back to the main point here - we certainly want to provide good customer service and an overall good user experience. But the discussion needs to be had concerning the definition of what we're selling people, and it cannot continue to be an unlimited pipe that spews forth as much data as you want all the time. I have never used the word 'unlimited' in any advertising and have never promised or alluded to that word at any time. In my business at least, I am leaning twords implementing 'content labeling' of the services offered which would work something like the ingredients on the box of corn flakes, and would describe all the features and restrictions of every service I offer. I think that, longer term, we're all going to have to do this (internet service content labeling) because otherwise, filesharing is going to overrun us all. Shared service is not shared if you're hogging it 24x7 Mike- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marlon, Merry Christmas to you and your family! Just a thought, you might want to fire those 9 customers. You could also rate-limit them down to 56K and see how long they stick around. Jeff -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce the results we are after then we look at other products. We will not tie our hands to one brand. No reason to. Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on. Yes, CIR is what we sell not MIR. That may be a good thing for us or it may turn out to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to deliver. Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. Expectations and end results are everything to us. We meet expectations or we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation. It's a small town! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Agreed. But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset thing is that can be delivered. CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really needed? And what areas of your business or network also prevent the CIR Full QOS guarantee from being realized? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived My thoughts exactly. If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today. Without those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in RF hostile environments. The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates your system as well as you possibly can. That seems to be the type of trick that just can't be taught. Your network designer either gets it or he doesn't. Heck, I've even done consulting gigs where I looked a guy right in the eye and gave them several choices for site locations. Only to have them pick something completely different, and sometimes unworkable. 80 to 90% of people's problems with wireless are self inflicted. Either outright or in a lack of forethought manner. Here's an idea for you Patrick. Make this product work both ways. Give it the option to be either csma or some fancy new version of token ring. Then we could optimize performance for any environment that we find ourselves in. Oh yeah, I remember the big hubbub about GPS in the BreezeACCESS II line. Why
[WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?
Sigh. Jon, I'm really not sure why you beat that drum when examples exist all around that show it is not true. In fact, no tier 1 or 2 operator that deploys in the 5GHz unlicensed bands (i.e. operators that tend to do lengthy trials, comparisons) that I know of has fallen for that argument either, at least not for long. Many WISPs also know better. It is only a few Canopy-based WISPs who continue to believe that GPS is required in the UL bands. Could it be because they have to use it to get Canopy to scale so they can't imagine how other systems could scale well without it? As for the non-engineer part, it seems Jon that you'd benefit from some wider non-technical thinking. What about the business? Here are some BUSINESS-minded things to think about: - What about an operator that does not want to be stranded by being limited in their service offering, such as one that would like to do scaled VoIP? BreezeACCESS VL can scale VoIP very well where other systems struggle with only minimal users. Canopy Advantage's VoIP scaling abilities are there for all to see in Motorola's own white paper -- 26-28 simultaneous calls per AP only, and that's with a 50% uplink/downlink configuration. VL can do 10x that and that all equates to revenue potential. - What about the LOS-limited coverage of Canopy that might require 2 or more times the towers to get the same coverage as one cell of VL? Even cell for cell, CAPEX is now similar between brands, but VL produces about 2x the geographic coverage. Canopy requires more cells (i.e. higher OPEX due to more cell leases and more sectors to maintain) and needs more premium sites. - And that's not counting the customer accessibility -- even within the exact same geography, VL can see many more of the potential customers than can Canopy. - And what about cell capacity? Using the same channel sizes, Canopy needs 2x the sectors to get still 15% less than VL? - And what about subscriber capacity? Anyone in the cell that wants more than 14mbps is totally out of the revenue picture and business model -- even with a Canopy ptp. BreezeACCESS VL pmp can connect 15mbps, 20mbps, 25mbps and even higher speed demanding customers. - And for sure now even the cost equation is now equal or better for VL than Canopy both per cell and per CPE since the advent of the AlvarionCOMNET program for WISPs. If you analyze completely today, you may find that Canopy's GPS ability is the only thing left that can even be spun as being an advantage over BreezeACCESS VL since we have come out with v.4.0 and the AlvarionCOMNET program. And when you realize that Canopy needs 2x sectors PER cell (to get the same capacity) and about 2x cells PER geography (to achieve the same coverage) -- it becomes pretty clear why Canopy must have GPS. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 1:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Marlon, if that's the type of product your looking for, I'll save you the hassle of looking (and you can come back to this post in 5-10 years to make your conclusions on my recommendation) because your best best is to go with canopy or wait until a 5GHz 802.16e solution comes out(not likely soon). If Alvarion would get an actual ENGINEER to debate about their RF technology compared to others on-list, that would be the day :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Products that are best effort [snip product name] end up making guys like us look bad. I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed spectrum, regardless of manufacturer? There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a licensed channel can accomplish that? Rich - Original Message - From: Brad Belton To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 5:17 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived If we are in an environment where ANY particular solution will not produce the results we are after then we look at other products. We will not tie our hands to one brand. No reason to. Our business model is different than the next and so on and so on. Yes, CIR is what we sell not MIR. That may be a good thing for us or it may turn out to be a bad thing for us, but that is the level of service we strive to deliver. Products that are best effort like VL end up making guys like us look bad. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. Expectations and end results are everything to us. We meet expectations or we'd rather not do it, part ways amiability and maintain our reputation. It's a small town! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Agreed. But what about when you are in an environment that TDD won't work well? Sometimes the answer is to modify your offering to what the beset thing is that can be delivered. CIR service may need to be changed to MIR. In what cases is CIR really needed? And what areas of your business or network also prevent the CIR Full QOS guarantee from being realized? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived My thoughts exactly. If the VL had a mechanism to tune out noise and a few other tools (dual pol - dual band) that would enable the user avoid noise then it is possible there simply would not be a better PtMP LE product available today. Without those critical elements the VL is just not able to perform consistently in RF hostile environments. The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Got it. Thanks. I guess my beef comes from being a wifi based wisp. I find it too difficult to reject interference with a csma based product. Anything with a wait for clear air, then transmit MAC is GREAT for collocation. But sucks when there are products around that don't follow that mechanism. That's (my personal belief) why Canopy went with it's GPS sync. It doesn't care who's already out there, when it's time to transmit it does. Trango does that to, just without sync'ing the AP's. My REAL world experience so far is that csmak (or csma/ca, or whatever collision avoidance scheme you want to use) is GREAT where there aren't many other systems within ear shot of the radios. However, when there are other devices in the area, especially those that don't have a collision avoidance mechanism, the csma radio will pay a heavy price in performance. Having used both csma and polling products, I'm not putting in any wifi type products at 5 gig. All of our next gen products will be polling as long as we can keep things that way. These days, I'm learning to sacrifice raw performance for reliability and uptime. There's a balance, sure, but getting that last 10 to 20% out of a product is less important to me than having a product that can survive some of the games that my less scrupulous competitors play. However, with EITHER technology choice, it's critical to design a network that can, and does, physically (antenna choice and ap locations) isolates
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Marlon / et al wisp ceo's, yes. your raw cost per mb is going to skyrocket once your users start watching iptv over your trunkline. I'm going to be posting compression and streaming solutions at http://iptv-coverage.com too. so please use my new site to archive your own findings as well. that way we'll have a central resource for IPTV related wisp issues. bob kim -- Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Provider http://evdo-coverage.com/satellite-wireless-internet.html http://evdo-coverage.com 2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101 Suite 203 Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 206 984 0880 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Products that are best effort [snip product name] end up making guys like us look bad. I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed spectrum, regardless of manufacturer? mks: I agree with you here Rich. I've always thought it silly to try to offer an SLA when using unlicensed gear. People do it all of the time though. Heck, it's silly with wires too, they get cut all of the time eh? grin. mks: Having said that, there are technologies that are allowed under the part-15 rules that are more or less robust than others. Full duplex radios that transmit on one channel and receive on another are really really hard to take offline. WiFi radios that must first have relatively clear air to transmit are also easy to take offline. mks: The current race out there, to which we're watching and arguing about with great gusto is to see who's technology is going to be the best long term. Right now, were all arguing about which technology is best. The truth of the matter is that they are all better than the other in the right conditions. What I did here might not work for you and what you do might not work for the next guy. That's part of why us consultants that are also wisps are so valuable, we get to see more real world stuff than most. mks: One thing I do know. I'll keep watching threads like this. I'll keep trying new toys. I'll keep making MY service better for my customers. I'll use the tools that work best today, for me. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a licensed channel can accomplish that? mks: Too true! I just got a call from a gal that was upset that she was only uploading at 79k. Come to find out she was using FTP not a web based mechanism. Her speakeasy.net test per her at 750 down 1400 up. Sure I'd like to see it go even faster, but my God, what does she want for $40 per month? marlon Rich - Original Message - trim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Correct. Any medium used to deliver broadband can be broken. However, frankly due to the fewer points of failure we typically see less downtime on unlicensed wireless links than we do conventional LEC T1 circuits. Like many things it all comes down to the geographic area. Would you expect a hardline T1 or a wireless T1 to deliver better uptime in or near a construction site? Most SLA's I've read (and that we offer if required to do so) are largely without teeth. Sure if a client is down an entire day or days on end most SLA's require some form of credit, but if a client was down for that long wouldn't you offer the credit in some cases anyway? Clients that have little threshold for pain due to downtime will quickly realize they need redundancy. I love the prospects that claim they have a zero threshold for pain regarding downtime. Oh ok, well then you'll need to move all your stuff into a Co-Lo facility with multiple redundant power, HVAC, upstreams etc, etc. That typically is received with silence and they come back down to Earth. Bottom line is Internet is only going to become more important in everyday life. Five years ago loosing Internet access for a day wasn't the end of the world...today it can be, but those people know it and plan for it by having backups in place. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Products that are best effort [snip product name] end up making guys like us look bad. I'm confused how can anyone do better than best effort in unlicensed spectrum, regardless of manufacturer? mks: I agree with you here Rich. I've always thought it silly to try to offer an SLA when using unlicensed gear. People do it all of the time though. Heck, it's silly with wires too, they get cut all of the time eh? grin. mks: Having said that, there are technologies that are allowed under the part-15 rules that are more or less robust than others. Full duplex radios that transmit on one channel and receive on another are really really hard to take offline. WiFi radios that must first have relatively clear air to transmit are also easy to take offline. mks: The current race out there, to which we're watching and arguing about with great gusto is to see who's technology is going to be the best long term. Right now, were all arguing about which technology is best. The truth of the matter is that they are all better than the other in the right conditions. What I did here might not work for you and what you do might not work for the next guy. That's part of why us consultants that are also wisps are so valuable, we get to see more real world stuff than most. mks: One thing I do know. I'll keep watching threads like this. I'll keep trying new toys. I'll keep making MY service better for my customers. I'll use the tools that work best today, for me. There is nothing worse than installing one day at 6Mbps and the next day getting a call saying they are getting something less than that. If you have no allowance for even temporary interference, what short of a licensed channel can accomplish that? mks: Too true! I just got a call from a gal that was upset that she was only uploading at 79k. Come to find out she was using FTP not a web based mechanism. Her speakeasy.net test per her at 750 down 1400 up. Sure I'd like to see it go even faster, but my God, what does she want for $40 per month? marlon Rich - Original Message - trim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?
I think we largely agree mostly here Jon. With respect to our 900 and legacy 2.4 hopping stuff a greater skill set may be required. With the VL line this is not the case -- VL and Canopy should be very similar in CPE install time unless you add the Canopy reflector, which should make an install a bit longer than a VL CPE. On the infrastructure it is true that we have more complexity which translates more required knowledge, but that is a by product of all the options and flexibility we enable, such as 60, 90, or 120 degree sector options, chassis or stand alone AUs, and a wealth of configurable parameters that are not available or adjustable with most other brands. So to that end, I agree that it takes a more knowledgeable operator to fully benefit from VL. And that does make for a challenging sale sometimes since a novice operator is not always able to understand the value some feature brings. I know many guys that never got Alvarion until they had experience and/or network size under their belts. I think you'll agree though that an operator should never outsource infrastructure installation to unskilled labor, regardless of brand. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS? I'm all about business, that's why in this case the technology actually affects the business case dramatically. For example, of all the products we've deployed(MANY including Alvarion), canopy and the WCDMA solutions we've worked with are the only ones I would have been confortable with outsourcing installations. For me to take that worth a grain of salt, can you name a handful of tier 1 or 2 operators deploying anything in the 5GHz bands? We've had no problems with capacity using canopy(900Mhz aside), and scaling has been absolutely no problem. Interference and lack of excess 5GHz used to be a problem before using canopy. I will definately agree that Canopy has some work to do in the VOIP and/or pps department. It's weakness. But it sounds like they will be improving that in the upcoming 8.2(?) release... Thanks Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Sigh. Jon, I'm really not sure why you beat that drum when examples exist all around that show it is not true. In fact, no tier 1 or 2 operator that deploys in the 5GHz unlicensed bands (i.e. operators that tend to do lengthy trials, comparisons) that I know of has fallen for that argument either, at least not for long. Many WISPs also know better. It is only a few Canopy-based WISPs who continue to believe that GPS is required in the UL bands. Could it be because they have to use it to get Canopy to scale so they can't imagine how other systems could scale well without it? As for the non-engineer part, it seems Jon that you'd benefit from some wider non-technical thinking. What about the business? Here are some BUSINESS-minded things to think about: - What about an operator that does not want to be stranded by being limited in their service offering, such as one that would like to do scaled VoIP? BreezeACCESS VL can scale VoIP very well where other systems struggle with only minimal users. Canopy Advantage's VoIP scaling abilities are there for all to see in Motorola's own white paper -- 26-28 simultaneous calls per AP only, and that's with a 50% uplink/downlink configuration. VL can do 10x that and that all equates to revenue potential. - What about the LOS-limited coverage of Canopy that might require 2 or more times the towers to get the same coverage as one cell of VL? Even cell for cell, CAPEX is now similar between brands, but VL produces about 2x the geographic coverage. Canopy requires more cells (i.e. higher OPEX due to more cell leases and more sectors to maintain) and needs more premium sites. - And that's not counting the customer accessibility -- even within the exact same geography, VL can see many more of the potential customers than can Canopy. - And what about cell capacity? Using the same channel sizes, Canopy needs 2x the sectors to get still 15% less than VL? - And what about subscriber capacity? Anyone in the cell that wants more than 14mbps is totally out of the revenue picture and business model -- even with a Canopy ptp. BreezeACCESS VL pmp can connect 15mbps, 20mbps, 25mbps and even higher speed demanding customers. - And for sure now even the cost equation is now equal or better for VL than Canopy both per cell and per CPE since the advent of the AlvarionCOMNET program for WISPs. If you analyze completely today, you may find that Canopy's GPS ability is the only thing left that can even be spun as being an advantage over BreezeACCESS VL since we have come out with v.4.0 and the AlvarionCOMNET program. And when
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Let's use 900MHz as an example. We deployed Alvarion 900 on multiple sites for over a year and it was a less than enjoyable experience. We started by transitioning one site from Alvarion 900 to Canopy 900 and things started working much better. I may use licensed operations as an example only because I've had the experience of being on both sides of the fence. Also we buy GPS sync units as low as $300 new from a 3rd party vendor, as do many canopy operators. As for the excess bandwidth availability in the UL bands, that's definately not the case here... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Jon, When discussing GPS, you continue to offer examples from the licensed world, which is about as relevant as trying to do an apples to apples comparisons of mobile licensed cellular service plans with UL fixed wireless. As I have said before (last week), licensed uses GPS due to the necessity of having to re-use a small amount of channel over and over again, cell after cell. That's not the case in the UL world, except perhaps for Canopy whose bandwidth availability is so low relative to the channel. Jon, you, me, the fence post and everyone else knows why Canopy -- alone in the entire UL 5GHz world -- requires GPS to scale, it's to keep from stepping all over itself. It is not even a debatable point. The recommendation is right there in Canopy white papers -- let me paraphrase: Deploying Canopy? What to scale? Buy this $1,500 cluster management module for each cell! (P.S. Don't forget the $125 power supply.) Seriously, saying Canopy's GPS (something you have to pay extra for even) is a value-added feature is like saying my car is special because it has tires. I have to hand it to Motorola though, they have convinced you that the one thing no other brand needs in UL, is something you have the privilege of paying extra for just to get your brand to work well in even modest scale in the first place. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I didn't make any 'claims' and as for 1,000 cpe, that's possible with wifi(although I'd hate to be one of the end-users). Some of the differences is how happy the customers are(reliability seems to play key here), whether they're business or res., how easy it is to have lower cost employees deploy the network(as opposed to me and other qualified or certified engineers that charge $10K's more/yr), and how tasked the support and management department is, etc. Things that factor into operating a real world wisp. My kind of business is one I can leave for a vacation or another venture while having confidence the thing is going to continue growing while I'm gone. As for GPS sync. Maybe the cellular guys were wrong the whole time, must be another Moto consipiracy and maybe mention that to everyone that developed 802.16d/e(WIMAX) including your own Alvarion engineers! ;) No GPS is not required, but it sure makes a lot of sense and is arguably 'proper' for a multi cell deployment. I predict this is one of those things that the novice wisp will someday either understand, moved on beyond wireless last mile, or stuck it out and trained their support dept. on how to 'put out fires' for as long as possible. Of course all of this is my opinion but I have to go now...hopfully was enough for everyone to chew on ;) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: Jon, LOL. Our engineers don't watch these threads and they probably never will and I wouldn't want them to. It's funny that this thread was started by a very happy Alvarion customer whom just broke the 1,000 cpe threshold with VL and he's doing the very things that aren't supposed to be possible according to some posting on this topic!! And the funny part of it is, VL displaced one of the products mentioned...performance went up, truck rolls went down, and he sleeps better at night!! This thread reminds me of a competitor slinging mud 2 years ago saying we couldn't build a 3 tower network in 5 square miles to connect 2,400 buildings...Blah blah sync sync... LOL. We not only built that network but it's a prime example of how if you KNOW WHAT YOURE DOING and are TRAINED AND CERTIFIED the product works like a charm. And if a wisp is building a scaling voip/data network canopy is not such a great solution so the hassle is in the details. Brad -- Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
Not sure how your Alvarion 900 was configured, but our you are aware that our 900 and 2.4 have both supported GPS sync since day one right Eight years before Canopy even launched)? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 5:54 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived Let's use 900MHz as an example. We deployed Alvarion 900 on multiple sites for over a year and it was a less than enjoyable experience. We started by transitioning one site from Alvarion 900 to Canopy 900 and things started working much better. I may use licensed operations as an example only because I've had the experience of being on both sides of the fence. Also we buy GPS sync units as low as $300 new from a 3rd party vendor, as do many canopy operators. As for the excess bandwidth availability in the UL bands, that's definately not the case here... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: Jon, When discussing GPS, you continue to offer examples from the licensed world, which is about as relevant as trying to do an apples to apples comparisons of mobile licensed cellular service plans with UL fixed wireless. As I have said before (last week), licensed uses GPS due to the necessity of having to re-use a small amount of channel over and over again, cell after cell. That's not the case in the UL world, except perhaps for Canopy whose bandwidth availability is so low relative to the channel. Jon, you, me, the fence post and everyone else knows why Canopy -- alone in the entire UL 5GHz world -- requires GPS to scale, it's to keep from stepping all over itself. It is not even a debatable point. The recommendation is right there in Canopy white papers -- let me paraphrase: Deploying Canopy? What to scale? Buy this $1,500 cluster management module for each cell! (P.S. Don't forget the $125 power supply.) Seriously, saying Canopy's GPS (something you have to pay extra for even) is a value-added feature is like saying my car is special because it has tires. I have to hand it to Motorola though, they have convinced you that the one thing no other brand needs in UL, is something you have the privilege of paying extra for just to get your brand to work well in even modest scale in the first place. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Langeler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 4:05 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived I didn't make any 'claims' and as for 1,000 cpe, that's possible with wifi(although I'd hate to be one of the end-users). Some of the differences is how happy the customers are(reliability seems to play key here), whether they're business or res., how easy it is to have lower cost employees deploy the network(as opposed to me and other qualified or certified engineers that charge $10K's more/yr), and how tasked the support and management department is, etc. Things that factor into operating a real world wisp. My kind of business is one I can leave for a vacation or another venture while having confidence the thing is going to continue growing while I'm gone. As for GPS sync. Maybe the cellular guys were wrong the whole time, must be another Moto consipiracy and maybe mention that to everyone that developed 802.16d/e(WIMAX) including your own Alvarion engineers! ;) No GPS is not required, but it sure makes a lot of sense and is arguably 'proper' for a multi cell deployment. I predict this is one of those things that the novice wisp will someday either understand, moved on beyond wireless last mile, or stuck it out and trained their support dept. on how to 'put out fires' for as long as possible. Of course all of this is my opinion but I have to go now...hopfully was enough for everyone to chew on ;) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: Jon, LOL. Our engineers don't watch these threads and they probably never will and I wouldn't want them to. It's funny that this thread was started by a very happy Alvarion customer whom just broke the 1,000 cpe threshold with VL and he's doing the very things that aren't supposed to be possible according to some posting on this topic!! And the funny part of it is, VL displaced one of the products mentioned...performance went up, truck rolls went down, and he sleeps better at night!! This thread reminds me of a competitor slinging mud 2 years ago saying we couldn't build a 3 tower network in 5 square miles to connect 2,400 buildings...Blah blah sync sync... LOL. We not only built that network but it's a prime example of how if you KNOW WHAT YOURE
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah, I know you took it off for me. As I recall the conversation you said that we could do some testing that would show that it really did speed things up. But it also caused a delay when the page was starting to load and that made it feel slower. Did I get this wrong? I think you have it right. Using a cache (even on Mikrotik) really does speed up browsing for end users. Using a cache, also, makes browsing feel slower, because of the lag between the click and the first part of the page being displayed. This part is true with any type of cache server (proxy). What I was referring to, is the fact that running the proxy server on a Mikrotik is (and always has been) problematic for various reasons. Having said that, Mikrotik is in the process of testing a new caching proxy server (my understanding is that they are coding this one from the ground up). I don't know how that one will work out. But, either way, I generally recommend against building a proxy server of any kind. YMMV. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FreeRadius on Debian
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Mark McElvy wrote: How does one get in touch with Jeremy Davis it used to be [EMAIL PROTECTED], but not sure that is still good. I've copied him on this email. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS?
Gents: Funny watching all of this go back and forth- I think since it started we have installed another 10-12 VL's for our customers. I really don't know how you guys find the time to keep up with this. You all can argue the merits of the technical abilities of the different products but what really make the count for us is REVENUE- Revenue pays the bills and keeps the whole ship afloat. Now when I say revenue I don't mean enough for me to take a check and go to the grocery. I mean enough revenue to hire the proper staff, (so I don't have to work 80 hours per week), revenue to rent a real office, revenue to pay full benefits like health care and 401K, revenue to pay for training, revenue to purchase network management so we can keep an eye on the network, revenue so we can take a few days off and attend industry trade shows and seminars, etc etc. So if you set aside your technical dream solution hat (I am an engineer by training too) and instead put on your revenue hat you will see things with a different light. A solution is not revenue focused if it does not scale your customer base beyond the grocery store check. Scale means the products allow you to install LOTS of customer without each one being a science project. Scale means you have a VERY LOW failure rate. Scale means the solution fits a majority of your desired customers. Scale means you have all of the tools needed to prevent your customers from abusing you or your other customers. Scale means you can hand the product to a contractor and it will get installed without a major effort. Scaling means..etc etc... A solution that scales also comes with REAL support. A real account manager and a real SE- not to mention marketing. Can you really expect your network to keep up with/grow to your needs if your sole source of product information and future direction is a WEB site? When was the last time a Trango EMPLOYEE asked for your feedback? We have installed well over 1000 VL's and close to 1900 total customers, almost all using Alvarion products. We started with Wifi, Trango, MOTO etc but in the end the Alavarion product line was the most focused on revenue and the only solution that allowed us to scale. Today our customers are VERY happy and our network performs excellently. We have a very LOW turnover (almost none) and our monthly AR is also very low. I learned long time ago that happy customers pay their bills and unhappy ones, well you know what happens. So in summary the VL's and (Alvarion products) may not have every version of every possible bell and whistle but if you decide to really make a big play (scale) you can't go wrong with Alvarion and their team. BTW-I have the revenue to prove it! Marty Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Jon, okay, I'm no engineer. But what about the BUSINESS? Sigh. Jon, I'm really not sure why you beat that drum when examples exist all around that show it is not true. In fact, no tier 1 or 2 operator that deploys in the 5GHz unlicensed bands (i.e. operators that tend to do lengthy trials, comparisons) that I know of has fallen for that argument either, at least not for long. Many WISPs also know better. It is only a few Canopy-based WISPs who continue to believe that GPS is required in the UL bands. Could it be because they have to use it to get Canopy to scale so they can't imagine how other systems could scale well without it? As for the non-engineer part, it seems Jon that you'd benefit from some wider non-technical thinking. What about the business? Here are some BUSINESS-minded things to think about: - What about an operator that does not want to be stranded by being limited in their service offering, such as one that would like to do scaled VoIP? BreezeACCESS VL can scale VoIP very well where other systems struggle with only minimal users. Canopy Advantage's VoIP scaling abilities are there for all to see in Motorola's own white paper -- 26-28 simultaneous calls per AP only, and that's with a 50% uplink/downlink configuration. VL can do 10x that and that all equates to revenue potential. - What about the LOS-limited coverage of Canopy that might require 2 or more times the towers to get the same coverage as one cell of VL? Even cell for cell, CAPEX is now similar between brands, but VL produces about 2x the geographic coverage. Canopy requires more cells (i.e. higher OPEX due to more cell leases and more sectors to maintain) and needs more premium sites. - And that's not counting the customer accessibility -- even within the exact same geography, VL can see many more of the potential customers than can Canopy. - And what about cell capacity? Using the same channel sizes, Canopy needs 2x the sectors to get still 15% less
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
- Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Yeah, I know you took it off for me. As I recall the conversation you said that we could do some testing that would show that it really did speed things up. But it also caused a delay when the page was starting to load and that made it feel slower. Did I get this wrong? I think you have it right. Using a cache (even on Mikrotik) really does speed up browsing for end users. Using a cache, also, makes browsing feel slower, because of the lag between the click and the first part of the page being displayed. This part is true with any type of cache server (proxy). FYI, that is NOT how things worked with my Cobalt CacheRAQ. It was amazing how quickly things snapped up on the page with it vs. without it. Too bad it was an older unit and I could only use it by changing the gateway addresses. And it had heat related lockup issues in the summer. I'd love to put another one in. It was money very well spent. Oh yeah, the reports that it generated every day were very useful. What I was referring to, is the fact that running the proxy server on a Mikrotik is (and always has been) problematic for various reasons. Having said that, Mikrotik is in the process of testing a new caching proxy server (my understanding is that they are coding this one from the ground up). I don't know how that one will work out. But, either way, I generally recommend against building a proxy server of any kind. YMMV. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Alvarion Comnet Radios have arrived
The Alvarion VL is great for bursty, best effort requirements where 90% of the user applications can wait for that clear air within the noise floor, but not for committed rate business class service. Best, Brad Brad, I see your almost continuous negative posts about VL and cannot help but wonder why you continue to send these posts over and over and over to this list. I do not need to be told every day that VL is bad in the world according to Brad Belton. We have all heard you say it 100 times I think. (Maybe several time that if we look at your posts to other lists about the same issues) Please change the record. There are many of us who do not agree with you that find your non-stop nitpicking posts to be a nuisance to this list. We get ityou hate VL. You stated your piece and we all read about it, OVER and OVER. Alvarion is open to criticism just as any other platform and we show no favoritism but enough is enough. Please move on to another topic. Respectfully, Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Marlon K. Schafer wrote: FYI, that is NOT how things worked with my Cobalt CacheRAQ. It was amazing how quickly things snapped up on the page with it vs. without it. Too bad it was an older unit and I could only use it by changing the gateway addresses. And it had heat related lockup issues in the summer. I'd love to put another one in. It was money very well spent. Funny how fast time goes by, now that you mentioned it, We had a cacheRAQ as well. You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your network. All free. For your final solution on how do you allow subs to download more bits and not raise your upstream cost, the solution is all pretty simple with what you have in place right now. You mentioned that Butch was your guy. Seeing Butch is your guy, I am assuming you have a MT box at your noc. Best solution is to do some bandwidth rules limiting your netowrk to never go more than x megs and to make your users burst or fall back. I would still consider a caching server to handle the videos just the same. That ought to shave something. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] bits per mbps
Unfortunately, caching servers break a lot of sites' content unintentionally. That is, they have to request a page from the requested site as if it were the exact same configuration (same browser, same OS, same plug-ins, etc., as the requestor) and then relay it to the requesting subscriber as if it were the destination site knowing that same information. Also, they add significant latency to ordinary traffic (the requested URLs have to be obtained in their entirety first then relayed) and you can't have more than a thousand up to several thousand simultaneous users...maybe not a problem... you can get around that with load balancing in the NOCs with multiple proxy servers. I'd be interested in learning of any well-performing installations in broadband. I'd be especially interested in learning if the heavy traffic users (P2P?) ever loaded a page that was on a regular site to inflict heavy traffic. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] bits per mbps Back in the olden days of dialup, I used to get fantastic results from our caching server. It was just a PIII machine with a whopping 640meg of memory, but it did a good job. Page views were noticeably faster when things were setup correctly. When I was in a backbone pinch, I used a caching server fed by a cable modem to offload a large percentage of my web surfing traffic. Worked fine until Charter's upload degraded so bad that external webmail (hotmail, yahoo) quit working. Got our fiber backbone installed at that time and didn't need it after that, but it did the job in a pinch. It is actually fairly simple to get a caching server running nowadays, compared to what we used to have to go through. CentOS seems to have a pretty decent squid caching server implementation in the install list ready to run. Once you get your localnets in the ACL list and make a few tweaks, it is off and running and ready for production. With servers so cheap, I am thinking about building one with 2 or 4gig of memory and setting it up to cache big objects (YouTube videos, Yahoo videos, 5meg objects, etc) and forcing all of my residential customers that are on private IP ranges to go through it. My connection is unmetered, so I don't really save that much by doing it as far as bandwidth consumption goes, but I'm up to 18-19meg at peak times on my 20 meg connection, so it might buy me a few months before I have to add capacity. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] George Rogato wrote: Marlon K. Schafer wrote: FYI, that is NOT how things worked with my Cobalt CacheRAQ. It was amazing how quickly things snapped up on the page with it vs. without it. Too bad it was an older unit and I could only use it by changing the gateway addresses. And it had heat related lockup issues in the summer. I'd love to put another one in. It was money very well spent. Funny how fast time goes by, now that you mentioned it, We had a cacheRAQ as well. You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your network. All free. For your final solution on how do you allow subs to download more bits and not raise your upstream cost, the solution is all pretty simple with what you have in place right now. You mentioned that Butch was your guy. Seeing Butch is your guy, I am assuming you have a MT box at your noc. Best solution is to do some bandwidth rules limiting your netowrk to never go more than x megs and to make your users burst or fall back. I would still consider a caching server to handle the videos just the same. That ought to shave something. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 12:23 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.28/604 - Release Date: 12/26/2006 12:23 PM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
