Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Jason Wallace]

You could try ferrite beads on all the cables involved at each ap. 
Especially on each end of the coax, right next to the connectors.  

Coax is made for "unbalanced" transmission; some antennas are
"balanced".  Connecting unbalanced cables to balanced antennas will
cause the outer jacket of the coax to radiate.  Ask any HAM.

Jason Wallace


Michael Baird wrote:

  Cable length to AP 1 foot, I'm not sure what type of cable is installed, 
presumably LMR-400. I will check on this as well.

The Water tower we are using for testing is located on the outskirts of 
the town. The town itself has about 4 businesses, no stoplights, looks 
like about 10 AP's in the whole town, population about 800 folks. The 
land is as flat as a pancake, no hills or great obstructions, minimal 
treelines.

Regards
Michael Baird
  
  
Whats the lenghs of the cables? They could be acting as antennas themselves.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 8:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

What kind of cable are you using between the APs and the antennas?

On May 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

  


  Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the  
AP's
still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will  
see
if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you  
give
me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all  
3, I
think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
overlap point.

Regards
Michael Baird

  
  
The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
gear to find the problem.

Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
antennas from previous posts.

Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?

Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much  
leakage
or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.

Greg

On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:


  


  I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
on
the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a  
better
way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
looking
for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with  
-100
noise floor's.

Regards
Michael Baird


  
  
Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
When
you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6  
and 7.
Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap  
of
channels 3 and 4 between.
Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear  
because
you listen to only half as much spectrum.
And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
problem.

I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can  
explain it
better.

Michael Baird wrote:


  


  I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
though
with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
changing to
10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
RSSI?

Regards
Michael Baird




  
  
Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Baird
Sent: Sa

Re: [WISPA] marine interference problem on 2.4 GHz

[Charles]

Yeah. It does sound like a pretty complex issue that would be best served by a 
consultant specializing in this sort of problem. 

Can anyone on the list provide the necessary expertise or put Roger in touch 
with someone who can?


 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger 

Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 22:47:33 
To: ; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] marine interference problem on 2.4 GHz


Rog,

I respectfully suggest you hire an expert to address this problem.

jack


Rogelio wrote:
> I've got an interesting interference problem in a marine area, and I was 
> hoping to get some feedback on it.
>
> Every week or so, something evil on 2.4 GHz comes through and 
> drastically raises the noise floor for about a day (an analysis showed 
> me like -50 dBm), thus knocking off everyone in the boat dock area who 
> is using that AP.
>
> I was thinking about the following type of solution and wanted to get 
> some feedback:
>
> --on each dock (9 total), have two dual radios
> --mesh them on an available 5.8 GHz channel (this band is not currently 
> a problem)
> --put in a 2.4 GHz panel antenna on each end (maybe a 19 dBi one that 
> gives, say, a 30 degree X 30 degree beam coverage). 7 dBm + 19 dBi = 36 
> dBm EIRP for ISM band in U.S.
> --have panels on each radio pointing in towards the middle dock area 
> (boats in the middle would have redundant coverage.  Boats on the far 
> edge would likely only be covered by the distant AP)
> --cover each dock with two channels, so if one channel is down, another 
> one is an option (or possibly the same channel on a different polarization)
> --possibly use band filters (assuming I know which band is the problem 
> child)
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.  I'm quite new to figuring out RF 
> problems like this.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>
>
>   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

Cable length to AP 1 foot, I'm not sure what type of cable is installed, 
presumably LMR-400. I will check on this as well.

The Water tower we are using for testing is located on the outskirts of 
the town. The town itself has about 4 businesses, no stoplights, looks 
like about 10 AP's in the whole town, population about 800 folks. The 
land is as flat as a pancake, no hills or great obstructions, minimal 
treelines.

Regards
Michael Baird
> Whats the lenghs of the cables? They could be acting as antennas themselves.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>  
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 8:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
> What kind of cable are you using between the APs and the antennas?
>
> On May 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>
>   
>> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the  
>> AP's
>> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will  
>> see
>> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
>> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
>> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
>> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
>> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you  
>> give
>> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
>> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
>> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
>> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all  
>> 3, I
>> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
>> overlap point.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>> 
>>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>>> gear to find the problem.
>>>
>>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>>> antennas from previous posts.
>>>
>>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>>
>>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much  
>>> leakage
>>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
 makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
 on
 the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a  
 better
 way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
 looking
 for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
 channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with  
 -100
 noise floor's.

 Regards
 Michael Baird

 
> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
> When
> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6  
> and 7.
> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap  
> of
> channels 3 and 4 between.
> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear  
> because
> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
> problem.
>
> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can  
> explain it
> better.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>
>
>   
>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
>> though
>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
>> changing to
>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
>> RSSI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> B

Re: [WISPA] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

[Kevin Neal]

For backbone links we do this already with PHP Weathermap.  Monitor your
backhaul signal/throughput/ping time etc with an snmp package that stores it
in rrd files, then make your map in weathermap and point to the right rrd
files for that node/links information.

http://www.network-weathermap.com/

-Kevin
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

How much would you pay for something like this?

Jayson




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Downtown area, just residential houses, signals on the opposite sides were
around the -88 mark.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:29 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

Are you in an industrial area with a lot of metal structures/buildings?
You may be getting some major reflection going on.

>From my experience, a sector on the south side of a water tank, pointing to
the south, will result in very little (if any) signal on the north of the
water tank.  Especially at a distance.
I have, however, seen reflected signal do some crazy things.


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

> I can verify that with a Tranzeo 13db HPOL antenna mounted on the east
side
> of a water tower pointing directly east that I can get clients connected
on
> the opposite side of the water tower that are within 1/8 mile to this
> antenna
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
> With the water tower in the middle, I find it really odd you are hearing
> the
>
> other APs so loud. (With that much isolations I'm surprised you can't
reuse
> the channels).
>
> Is it possible you are getting near field reflections off of obstacles in
> front of the sectors, which cause bounced to the other side of the tower,
> and back to the sectors on that side?
>
> I have not used the Tranzeo antennas si Icant say good or bad about the,,
> only thing I could think of would be maybe the Tranzeo antennas are not
> that
>
> high quality to limit the beam width adequately? I personally talk highly
> of
>
> Tiltek's good side isolation. It might be worth swapping out one of the
> antennas with another brand to see how much the results change.
>
>
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Baird" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
>
> > 1. UBNT PS2-EXT, Tranzeo 13db/120.
> > 2. Water tower, mounted on catwalk railings.
> > 3. No vertical, 20ft or so horizontal.
> >
> > Radios set to 23db tx, Antennas are 13db, should be under EIRP since we
> > haven't compensated for cable connector loss.
> >
> > They are all horizontally polarized at the moment.
> >
> > Regards
> > Michael Baird
> >> I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to
hot.
> >> I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
> >> Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please
> >> clarify
> >>
> >> 1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
> >> 2. What type structure mounted to
> >> 3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.
> >>
> >> Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than
> >> 36db.
> >>
> >> Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of
> >> signal
> >> at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional
> >> seperation
> >> than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
> >> This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical
> >> barriers/shields.
> >> Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90
> >> degree
> >> sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping
channels.
> >> (not considering polarity).
> >> However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan,
> >> therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
> >> If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary
to
> >> use
> >> a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas
were
> >> used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd
still
> >> cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between
> >> sectors.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom DeReggi
> >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Ralph" 
> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>> What hardware are you using for your APs?
> >>> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

> 
> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >>>
>
>
--

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 8:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

What kind of cable are you using between the APs and the antennas?

On May 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the  
> AP's
> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will  
> see
> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you  
> give
> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all  
> 3, I
> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
> overlap point.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>> gear to find the problem.
>>
>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>> antennas from previous posts.
>>
>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>
>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much  
>> leakage
>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
>>> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
>>> on
>>> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a  
>>> better
>>> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
>>> looking
>>> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
>>> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with  
>>> -100
>>> noise floor's.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
 Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
 When
 you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6  
 and 7.
 Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap  
 of
 channels 3 and 4 between.
 Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear  
 because
 you listen to only half as much spectrum.
 And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
 problem.

 I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can  
 explain it
 better.

 Michael Baird wrote:


> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
> though
> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
> changing to
> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
> RSSI?
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.
>> We are
>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,
>> antennas
>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and
>> noticed
>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they
>> aren't
>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the
>> tower was
>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>
>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Whats the lenghs of the cables? They could be acting as antennas themselves.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 8:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

What kind of cable are you using between the APs and the antennas?

On May 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the  
> AP's
> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will  
> see
> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you  
> give
> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all  
> 3, I
> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
> overlap point.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>> gear to find the problem.
>>
>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>> antennas from previous posts.
>>
>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>
>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much  
>> leakage
>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
>>> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
>>> on
>>> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a  
>>> better
>>> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
>>> looking
>>> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
>>> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with  
>>> -100
>>> noise floor's.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
 Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
 When
 you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6  
 and 7.
 Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap  
 of
 channels 3 and 4 between.
 Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear  
 because
 you listen to only half as much spectrum.
 And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
 problem.

 I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can  
 explain it
 better.

 Michael Baird wrote:


> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
> though
> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
> changing to
> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
> RSSI?
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.
>> We are
>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,
>> antennas
>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and
>> noticed
>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they
>> aren't
>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the
>> tower was
>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>
>> AP 30 can see AP 150 

Re: [WISPA] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

[Gino Villarini]

Our Monitoring Software: Intermapper has a Google Earth overlay 


Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jayson Baker
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 6:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

SQL backend stores the signal information for historizal purposes.
Could be portrayed on here many ways.
The images I sent don't show it, but the lines to the AP change in
color/width based on current signal levels.
Lines find their own way to the AP which the SM/CPE is currently
registered.

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Dylan Oliver 
wrote:

> That's purty good but I been thinking a heatmap with residual 
> indication of historical/average signal would be doper because you 
> could see at a glance where links are going cold. Only so far you can 
> go with straight-up google maps. Better off pulling it all into a Flex
interface.
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jayson Baker 
> wrote:
>
> > How much would you pay for something like this?
> >
> > Jayson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> --
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dylan Oliver
> Primaverity, LLC
> Sweeping Design LLC
>
>
>
> --
> --
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[os10rules]

What kind of cable are you using between the APs and the antennas?

On May 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the  
> AP's
> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will  
> see
> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you  
> give
> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all  
> 3, I
> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
> overlap point.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>> gear to find the problem.
>>
>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>> antennas from previous posts.
>>
>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>
>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much  
>> leakage
>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
>>> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
>>> on
>>> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a  
>>> better
>>> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
>>> looking
>>> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
>>> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with  
>>> -100
>>> noise floor's.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
 Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
 When
 you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6  
 and 7.
 Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap  
 of
 channels 3 and 4 between.
 Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear  
 because
 you listen to only half as much spectrum.
 And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
 problem.

 I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can  
 explain it
 better.

 Michael Baird wrote:


> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
> though
> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
> changing to
> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
> RSSI?
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.
>> We are
>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,
>> antennas
>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and
>> noticed
>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they
>> aren't
>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the
>> tower was
>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>
>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>>
>> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is
>> because of
>> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on  
>> channels
>> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other
>> AP's with
>> such

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Jayson Baker]

Are you in an industrial area with a lot of metal structures/buildings?
You may be getting some major reflection going on.

>From my experience, a sector on the south side of a water tank, pointing to
the south, will result in very little (if any) signal on the north of the
water tank.  Especially at a distance.
I have, however, seen reflected signal do some crazy things.


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

> I can verify that with a Tranzeo 13db HPOL antenna mounted on the east side
> of a water tower pointing directly east that I can get clients connected on
> the opposite side of the water tower that are within 1/8 mile to this
> antenna
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
> With the water tower in the middle, I find it really odd you are hearing
> the
>
> other APs so loud. (With that much isolations I'm surprised you can't reuse
> the channels).
>
> Is it possible you are getting near field reflections off of obstacles in
> front of the sectors, which cause bounced to the other side of the tower,
> and back to the sectors on that side?
>
> I have not used the Tranzeo antennas si Icant say good or bad about the,,
> only thing I could think of would be maybe the Tranzeo antennas are not
> that
>
> high quality to limit the beam width adequately? I personally talk highly
> of
>
> Tiltek's good side isolation. It might be worth swapping out one of the
> antennas with another brand to see how much the results change.
>
>
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Baird" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
>
> > 1. UBNT PS2-EXT, Tranzeo 13db/120.
> > 2. Water tower, mounted on catwalk railings.
> > 3. No vertical, 20ft or so horizontal.
> >
> > Radios set to 23db tx, Antennas are 13db, should be under EIRP since we
> > haven't compensated for cable connector loss.
> >
> > They are all horizontally polarized at the moment.
> >
> > Regards
> > Michael Baird
> >> I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to hot.
> >> I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
> >> Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please
> >> clarify
> >>
> >> 1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
> >> 2. What type structure mounted to
> >> 3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.
> >>
> >> Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than
> >> 36db.
> >>
> >> Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of
> >> signal
> >> at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional
> >> seperation
> >> than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
> >> This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical
> >> barriers/shields.
> >> Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90
> >> degree
> >> sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping channels.
> >> (not considering polarity).
> >> However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan,
> >> therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
> >> If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary to
> >> use
> >> a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas were
> >> used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd still
> >> cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between
> >> sectors.
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom DeReggi
> >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >>
> >>
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Ralph" 
> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>> What hardware are you using for your APs?
> >>> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
> >>>
> >>> Ralph
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
> 
> 
> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >>> 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/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> 
> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >>
>
> -

Re: [WISPA] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

[Jayson Baker]

SQL backend stores the signal information for historizal purposes.  Could be
portrayed on here many ways.
The images I sent don't show it, but the lines to the AP change in
color/width based on current signal levels.
Lines find their own way to the AP which the SM/CPE is currently registered.

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Dylan Oliver  wrote:

> That's purty good but I been thinking a heatmap with residual indication of
> historical/average signal would be doper because you could see at a glance
> where links are going cold. Only so far you can go with straight-up google
> maps. Better off pulling it all into a Flex interface.
> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jayson Baker 
> wrote:
>
> > How much would you pay for something like this?
> >
> > Jayson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dylan Oliver
> Primaverity, LLC
> Sweeping Design LLC
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Kurt Fankhauser]

I can verify that with a Tranzeo 13db HPOL antenna mounted on the east side
of a water tower pointing directly east that I can get clients connected on
the opposite side of the water tower that are within 1/8 mile to this
antenna

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 4:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

With the water tower in the middle, I find it really odd you are hearing the

other APs so loud. (With that much isolations I'm surprised you can't reuse 
the channels).

Is it possible you are getting near field reflections off of obstacles in 
front of the sectors, which cause bounced to the other side of the tower, 
and back to the sectors on that side?

I have not used the Tranzeo antennas si Icant say good or bad about the,, 
only thing I could think of would be maybe the Tranzeo antennas are not that

high quality to limit the beam width adequately? I personally talk highly of

Tiltek's good side isolation. It might be worth swapping out one of the 
antennas with another brand to see how much the results change.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Baird" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation


> 1. UBNT PS2-EXT, Tranzeo 13db/120.
> 2. Water tower, mounted on catwalk railings.
> 3. No vertical, 20ft or so horizontal.
>
> Radios set to 23db tx, Antennas are 13db, should be under EIRP since we
> haven't compensated for cable connector loss.
>
> They are all horizontally polarized at the moment.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to hot.
>> I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
>> Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please
>> clarify
>>
>> 1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
>> 2. What type structure mounted to
>> 3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.
>>
>> Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than 
>> 36db.
>>
>> Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of 
>> signal
>> at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional 
>> seperation
>> than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
>> This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical
>> barriers/shields.
>> Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90 
>> degree
>> sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping channels.
>> (not considering polarity).
>> However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan,
>> therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
>> If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary to 
>> use
>> a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas were
>> used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd still
>> cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between
>> sectors.
>>
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Ralph" 
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>>
>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> What hardware are you using for your APs?
>>> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>


>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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] Realtime Geographic Visualization of Network

[Dylan Oliver]

That's purty good but I been thinking a heatmap with residual indication of
historical/average signal would be doper because you could see at a glance
where links are going cold. Only so far you can go with straight-up google
maps. Better off pulling it all into a Flex interface.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jayson Baker  wrote:

> How much would you pay for something like this?
>
> Jayson
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>



-- 
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
Sweeping Design LLC



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Tom DeReggi]

With the water tower in the middle, I find it really odd you are hearing the 
other APs so loud. (With that much isolations I'm surprised you can't reuse 
the channels).

Is it possible you are getting near field reflections off of obstacles in 
front of the sectors, which cause bounced to the other side of the tower, 
and back to the sectors on that side?

I have not used the Tranzeo antennas si Icant say good or bad about the,, 
only thing I could think of would be maybe the Tranzeo antennas are not that 
high quality to limit the beam width adequately? I personally talk highly of 
Tiltek's good side isolation. It might be worth swapping out one of the 
antennas with another brand to see how much the results change.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Michael Baird" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation


> 1. UBNT PS2-EXT, Tranzeo 13db/120.
> 2. Water tower, mounted on catwalk railings.
> 3. No vertical, 20ft or so horizontal.
>
> Radios set to 23db tx, Antennas are 13db, should be under EIRP since we
> haven't compensated for cable connector loss.
>
> They are all horizontally polarized at the moment.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to hot.
>> I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
>> Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please
>> clarify
>>
>> 1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
>> 2. What type structure mounted to
>> 3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.
>>
>> Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than 
>> 36db.
>>
>> Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of 
>> signal
>> at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional 
>> seperation
>> than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
>> This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical
>> barriers/shields.
>> Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90 
>> degree
>> sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping channels.
>> (not considering polarity).
>> However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan,
>> therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
>> If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary to 
>> use
>> a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas were
>> used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd still
>> cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between
>> sectors.
>>
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Ralph" 
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>>
>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> What hardware are you using for your APs?
>>> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Mike Hammett]

It depends on which Atheros chipset.   6th Generation, AR5414 vs. 4th 
Generation, AR5213


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Jayson Baker" 
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:39 AM
To: ; "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

> How do you make this determination?
> What about an R52, or R5H?  What about integrated units like NS2, NS2L?
>
> Jayson
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:00 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind that this is not necessary true depending what chip set the
>> card is using. For example the SR2 cards will always listen to 20Mhz even 
>> if
>> they only transmit on 10MHz or even 5MHz. While for example a XR2 set in
>> 10MHz mode will only listen to 10MHz.
>>
>> /Eje
>> CTO
>> WISP-Router, Inc.
>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Scott Reed 
>>
>> Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 11:40:31
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>>
>> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.  When
>> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
>> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
>> channels 3 and 4 between.
>> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
>> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
>> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a 
>> problem.
>>
>> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
>> better.
>>
>> Michael Baird wrote:
>> > I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference though
>> > with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will changing to
>> > 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower RSSI?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Michael Baird
>> >
>> >> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Fankhauser
>> >> WAVELINC
>> >> P.O. Box 126
>> >> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> >> 419-562-6405
>> >> www.wavelinc.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> >> On
>> >> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> >> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>> >> To: WISPA General List
>> >> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>> >>
>> >> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers. We 
>> >> are
>> >> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt, antennas
>> >> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and noticed
>> >> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they aren't
>> >> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the tower was
>> >> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>> >>
>> >> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>> >> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>> >> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>> >>
>> >> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is because of
>> >> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels
>> >> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other AP's 
>> >> with
>> >> such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate them
>> better.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Michael Baird
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> >> 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/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 
>> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> >> 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/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> > 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/
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> > Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 - Release Date:
>> 05/01/0

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Mike Hammett]

Same with CM9, etc. vs. R52, etc.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: 
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:00 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

> Keep in mind that this is not necessary true depending what chip set the 
> card is using. For example the SR2 cards will always listen to 20Mhz even 
> if they only transmit on 10MHz or even 5MHz. While for example a XR2 set 
> in 10MHz mode will only listen to 10MHz.
>
> /Eje
> CTO
> WISP-Router, Inc.
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Reed 
>
> Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 11:40:31
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
>
> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.  When
> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
> channels 3 and 4 between.
> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a problem.
>
> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
> better.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference though
>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will changing to
>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower RSSI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>
>>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>>
>>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers. We are
>>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt, antennas
>>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and noticed
>>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they aren't
>>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the tower was
>>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>>
>>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>>> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>>>
>>> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is because of
>>> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels
>>> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other AP's with
>>> such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate them 
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> 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/
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 - Release Date: 
>> 05/01/09 17:52:00
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x4000
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wisp

Re: [WISPA] Free Radius Servers

[Scott Lambert]

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 07:59:09AM -0500, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 7:56 am, 3-dB Networks wrote:
> > Not at all.  I have the controller and access points picked out, just need
> > the radius server for the CC processing and authentication for the
> > controller to talk to.
> 
> I'm still a bit confused, I guess - RADIUS doesn't have anything to do
> with credit cards. It's purely authentication/authorization (i.e. here's a
> name and password, do they get in, yes/no).

It is also accounting.

The billing system feeds the RADIUS database who is allowed to
authenticate and what they are allowed to do.  RADIUS collects
accounting infomation, how long connected, how many bits transefered and
at which hotspot.  Billing eats the accounting information from RADIUS
and uses that as input to the authentication and authorization phase.

You might want to look at DaloRADIUS, as a hotspot oriented management
frontend to FreeRADIUS.  I've not used it, so cannot vouch for it.  Just
hear it mentioned a lot on the FreeRADIUS mailing lists.

-- 
Scott LambertKC5MLE   Unix SysAdmin
lamb...@lambertfam.org




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

1. UBNT PS2-EXT, Tranzeo 13db/120.
2. Water tower, mounted on catwalk railings.
3. No vertical, 20ft or so horizontal.

Radios set to 23db tx, Antennas are 13db, should be under EIRP since we 
haven't compensated for cable connector loss.

They are all horizontally polarized at the moment.

Regards
Michael Baird
> I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to hot.
> I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
> Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please 
> clarify
>
> 1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
> 2. What type structure mounted to
> 3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.
>
> Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than 36db.
>
> Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of signal 
> at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional seperation 
> than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
> This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical 
> barriers/shields.
> Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90 degree 
> sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping channels. 
> (not considering polarity).
> However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan, 
> therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
> If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary to use 
> a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas were 
> used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd still 
> cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between 
> sectors.
>
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ralph" 
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
>
>   
>> Michael
>>
>> What hardware are you using for your APs?
>> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> 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/ 
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

I appreciate that it is not a problem at the AP, I understand the 
concept of 1/6/11 being center channels only, and they might transmit 
power outside the 20mhz width specified, and 10mhz/5mhz channels being 
"narrower" channels are less likely to cause bleedover. Again I tried 
the 10mhz channel width's per recommendation and still had the same results.

The AP that can see both when doing a "AP scan" is on channel 11, it can 
see AP300/AP150 at -42 at this moment.

But again, my other two AP's see each other at 70 when doing a site 
scan, I'm trying to reconcile this, at this point I think it's antenna 
spacing, the previous network owners didn't space out the sector's 
correctly, instead of pointing each main beam 120 degrees apart they 
ended up with 30/150/300.

I was just looking for thoughts as to what is normal?  My feeling was 
that the sector's should be more isolated then they are, starting where 
the AP's/Sector's are mounted. Example if I'm at a point 5 miles out at 
170 degree heading and can see the AP w/mainbeam centered at 150, I can 
see that at -70, I can see the AP mounted w/mainbeam centered at 300 at 
-72, according to my antenna diagrams, at that location in relation to 
the sector's I should be down -24, not -2.

Regards
Michael Baird

> Let me try to clear something up. Just because you did an "AP scan" on one
> antenna and it can see the other two in the -30's doesn't mean that you are
> getting a full -30 signal 20mhz higher or lower. All that says is you are
> that loud on THAT CHANNEL. You already stated that you are using channel
> 1,6,11. So if that above was on channel 6 then on channel 1 and 11 the
> bleedover (not the proper term) will be LOWER. There is no way to measure
> this without a spectrum analyzer.
>
> So by using 10mhz channels you are putting a lot more "buffer" between the
> channels thus reducing this bleedover.  
>
> Even on 10mhz channels or even 5mhz channel you are still going to see all
> the antennas at -30's because when it scans "ON THOSE CHANNELS" that's how
> loud it is but who cares?!? Your not running them all on the same channel
> your running 1,6,11.
>
> Just because channels 1,6,11 are "non overlapping" doesn't mean that the
> radio's are that precise. If you look at a spectrum analyzer there will be a
> curve starting at the both edge's of the 20mhz signal and it goes down. That
> is the bleedover we are talking about. If the radio's were perfect there
> would be a straight line down at the edge of the 20mhz signal but this is
> how it is.
>
> This is all basic RF and many WISPS don't understand basic RF but I would
> suggest hanging around a two-way radio shop like I did and you will learn a
> lot more and hopefully help yourself out by doing so.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Baird
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:14 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep 
> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey on 
> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better 
> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was looking 
> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my 
> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100 
> noise floor's.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>   
>> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.  When 
>> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.  
>> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of 
>> channels 3 and 4 between.
>> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because 
>> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
>> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a problem.
>>
>> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it 
>> better.
>>
>> Michael Baird wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference though 
>>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will changing to 
>>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower RSSI?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
 Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 WAVELINC
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 419-562-6405
 www.wavelinc.com
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Michael Baird
 Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

 We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers. We are 
 atte

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Tom DeReggi]

I would agree with Michael that he's hearing the other AP radios to hot.
I saw beamwidths and positioning on radius posted.
Not sure if I missed it in earlier post, or not stated yet, but please 
clarify

1. What brand/model APs and Antennas
2. What type structure mounted to
3. How much verticle and horizontal seperation between antennas.

Also confirm radios are at legal tx powers, with EIRPs no higher than 36db.

Remember a 120deg sector only means that their is a 3db difference of signal 
at 120 degrees. Using 3- 120deg antenna will require additional seperation 
than just reliant on the antenna beamwidth.
This seperation can be verticle, horizontal, polarity, or physical 
barriers/shields.
Note: with proper channel coordination, it is possible to get four 90 degree 
sector antennas on a tower, even though only 3 non-overlapping channels. 
(not considering polarity).
However, I recommend not being locked into a specific channel plan, 
therefore prefer to gain as much isolation other than channel choice.
If there is not adequate spacial or physical isolation, its necessary to use 
a lower beamwidth antenna. For example, if three 90 degree antennas were 
used there would be less overlap between the three antennas. You'd still 
cover 360degree, the signal would just be lower at the edges between 
sectors.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Ralph" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation


> Michael
>
> What hardware are you using for your APs?
> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

They are ubiquities now, but they were tranzeo's previously and 
exhibited the same behavior. The AP's are physically located next each 
sector antenna, w/only the 1 card in each, with the water tower 
(w/water) in between.

Regards
Michael Baird
> Michael
>
> What hardware are you using for your APs?
> Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> 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/
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[Ralph]

Michael

What hardware are you using for your APs?
Is it something with all 3 radio cards in one enclosure?

Ralph




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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] Sector separation/isolation

[George Rogato]

Agreed, I do not think it is possible to have three sectors on a tower 
that don't see each other.

Unless of course it's on a large water tank and the water tank is 
blocking the signals.

There should not be a problem with sectors that see or hear each other, 
as long as the sectors are not overlapping channel wise.

If the chip is bleeding over, like ch 6 actually bleeding into channel 
10 and channel 3, then you need to buy a notch filter.
Some wireless cards are bad in that regard.



Josh Luthman wrote:
> Just because an antenna is pointed east does not nothinh bleeds west
> of the antenna.
> 
> If you don't want them to see each other you'll want a good 10 foot
> difference (vertically).
> 
> On 5/3/09, Michael Baird  wrote:
>> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the AP's
>> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will see
>> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
>> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
>> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
>> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
>> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you give
>> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
>> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
>> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
>> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all 3, I
>> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
>> overlap point.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>>> gear to find the problem.
>>>
>>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>>> antennas from previous posts.
>>>
>>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>>
>>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much leakage
>>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>>
>>>
 I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
 makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
 on
 the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better
 way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
 looking
 for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
 channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100
 noise floor's.

 Regards
 Michael Baird

> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
> When
> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
> channels 3 and 4 between.
> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
> problem.
>
> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
> better.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>
>
>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
>> though
>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
>> changing to
>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
>> RSSI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>
>>
>>
>>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>>
>>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.
>>> We are
>>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,
>>> antennas
>>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and
>>> n

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Let me try to clear something up. Just because you did an "AP scan" on one
antenna and it can see the other two in the -30's doesn't mean that you are
getting a full -30 signal 20mhz higher or lower. All that says is you are
that loud on THAT CHANNEL. You already stated that you are using channel
1,6,11. So if that above was on channel 6 then on channel 1 and 11 the
bleedover (not the proper term) will be LOWER. There is no way to measure
this without a spectrum analyzer.

So by using 10mhz channels you are putting a lot more "buffer" between the
channels thus reducing this bleedover.  

Even on 10mhz channels or even 5mhz channel you are still going to see all
the antennas at -30's because when it scans "ON THOSE CHANNELS" that's how
loud it is but who cares?!? Your not running them all on the same channel
your running 1,6,11.

Just because channels 1,6,11 are "non overlapping" doesn't mean that the
radio's are that precise. If you look at a spectrum analyzer there will be a
curve starting at the both edge's of the 20mhz signal and it goes down. That
is the bleedover we are talking about. If the radio's were perfect there
would be a straight line down at the edge of the 20mhz signal but this is
how it is.

This is all basic RF and many WISPS don't understand basic RF but I would
suggest hanging around a two-way radio shop like I did and you will learn a
lot more and hopefully help yourself out by doing so.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Baird
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep 
makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey on 
the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better 
way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was looking 
for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my 
channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100 
noise floor's.

Regards
Michael Baird
> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.  When 
> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.  
> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of 
> channels 3 and 4 between.
> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because 
> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a problem.
>
> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it 
> better.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>   
>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference though 
>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will changing to 
>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower RSSI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>   
>> 
>>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>>
>>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers. We are 
>>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt, antennas 
>>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and noticed 
>>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they aren't 
>>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the tower was 
>>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>>
>>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>>> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>>>
>>> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is because of 
>>> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels 
>>> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other AP's with

>>> such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate them
better.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>


>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wisp

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Josh Luthman]

Just because an antenna is pointed east does not nothinh bleeds west
of the antenna.

If you don't want them to see each other you'll want a good 10 foot
difference (vertically).

On 5/3/09, Michael Baird  wrote:
> Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the AP's
> still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will see
> if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation
> either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20
> foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower
> in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the
> tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you give
> me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look
> for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the
> sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each
> sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all 3, I
> think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the
> overlap point.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually
>> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting
>> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment
>> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and
>> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out
>> gear to find the problem.
>>
>> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is
>> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical
>> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will
>> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the
>> antennas from previous posts.
>>
>> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>>
>> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the
>> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem
>> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much leakage
>> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
>>> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey
>>> on
>>> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better
>>> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was
>>> looking
>>> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
>>> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100
>>> noise floor's.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
 Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.
 When
 you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
 Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
 channels 3 and 4 between.
 Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
 you listen to only half as much spectrum.
 And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a
 problem.

 I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
 better.

 Michael Baird wrote:


> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference
> though
> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will
> changing to
> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower
> RSSI?
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
>
>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>
>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.
>> We are
>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,
>> antennas
>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and
>> noticed
>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they
>> aren't
>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the
>> tower was
>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>
>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>>
>> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is
>> because of
>> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels
>> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other
>>>

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

Yes, I tried the 10mhz/5mhz channel widths, per recommendation, the AP's 
still saw each other at similar signal strengths (w/antenna). I will see 
if I can check the rest of the stuff, there is no vertical separation 
either as another recommended, the antennas themselves are at least 20 
foot apart. They are on 3 sides of a water tower, with the water tower 
in between. I didn't install the equipment and haven't been up on the 
tower, so I can't say firsthand how it has been installed. Can you give 
me a rundown of how it should be installed, so I can know what to look 
for. Defective antenna is an idea though, they are Tranzeo 120's, the 
sectorization barely works at distance. I can see all 3 AP's at each 
sector 7 miles away, can peer with two of them, associate with all 3, I 
think this is wrong. I think I should only see one, unless I'm at the 
overlap point.

Regards
Michael Baird
> The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually  
> high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting  
> in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment  
> should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and  
> for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out  
> gear to find the problem.
>
> Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is  
> normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical  
> separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will  
> help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the  
> antennas from previous posts.
>
> Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?
>
> Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the  
> coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem  
> goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much leakage  
> or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.
>
> Greg
>
> On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:
>
>   
>> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
>> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey  
>> on
>> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better
>> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was  
>> looking
>> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
>> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100
>> noise floor's.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>> 
>>> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.   
>>> When
>>> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
>>> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
>>> channels 3 and 4 between.
>>> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
>>> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
>>> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a  
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
>>> better.
>>>
>>> Michael Baird wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference  
 though
 with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will  
 changing to
 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower  
 RSSI?

 Regards
 Michael Baird


 
> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
> boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Baird
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>
> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.  
> We are
> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,  
> antennas
> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and  
> noticed
> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they  
> aren't
> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the  
> tower was
> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>
> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>
> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is  
> because of
> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels
> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other  
> AP's with
> such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate  
> them better.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
> 
> 
> WI

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[os10rules]

The problem of the APs seeing each other could be due to unusually  
high signal leakage (defective antenna, coax, enclosure etc resulting  
in poor shielding/signal leakage). If that's the case the equipment  
should be performing better than it is (less mutual interference) and  
for some reason it's not. You'd have to investigate and/or swap out  
gear to find the problem.

Or is it that the equipment and install are all good and this is  
normal due to the proximity? If it's proximity then physical  
separation and/or frequency separation is the only thing that will  
help, hence the suggestion of using narrower channels and moving the  
antennas from previous posts.

Did you try going to 10 MHz channels?

Can you disconnect the antenna and put dummy loads on the ends of the  
coax and see how strong the APs can see each other? If the problem  
goes away then it's either a) defective antennas with too much leakage  
or side/rear lobes) or b) antenna proximity.

Greg

On May 3, 2009, at 7:13 AM, Michael Baird wrote:

> I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep
> makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey  
> on
> the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better
> way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was  
> looking
> for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my
> channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100
> noise floor's.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.   
>> When
>> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.
>> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of
>> channels 3 and 4 between.
>> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because
>> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
>> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a  
>> problem.
>>
>> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it
>> better.
>>
>> Michael Baird wrote:
>>
>>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference  
>>> though
>>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will  
>>> changing to
>>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower  
>>> RSSI?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
>>>
 Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 WAVELINC
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 419-562-6405
 www.wavelinc.com


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
 boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Michael Baird
 Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

 We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers.  
 We are
 attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt,  
 antennas
 to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and  
 noticed
 they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they  
 aren't
 right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the  
 tower was
 the signal level I can see the other AP's at.

 AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
 AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
 AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.

 So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is  
 because of
 the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels
 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other  
 AP's with
 such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate  
 them better.

 Regards
 Michael Baird


 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 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/



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 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/



>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wire

Re: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation

[Michael Baird]

I think I didn't explain my problem clearly. 10mhz/5mhz channel sep 
makes no difference on how each AP see's each other on a site survey on 
the tower.  I want to isolate the sectors from each other in a better 
way, they are too hot to each other and too much overlap. I was looking 
for  good ways to do it, I have no noise problems to clients, and my 
channels on the 3 AP's are 1/6/11, none overlapping, and all with -100 
noise floor's.

Regards
Michael Baird
> Right now channel 1 uses channel 1, 2 and 3.  Channel 6 uses 4-8.  When 
> you go to 10MHz channels 1 will use 1 and  2.  6 will use 5, 6 and 7.  
> Therefore, you are no longer on adjacent channels, there is a gap of 
> channels 3 and 4 between.
> Also, you will cut down on the amount of other noise you hear because 
> you listen to only half as much spectrum.
> And, you will have more effective power so noise may be less of a problem.
>
> I am sure there are some RF savvy folks out there that can explain it 
> better.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>   
>> I can try that, can you tell me why that would make a difference though 
>> with the AP's seeing each other at such signal levels? Will changing to 
>> 10mhz channel width's cause the AP's to see each other at a lower RSSI?
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>   
>> 
>>> Use 10mhz channels instead of 20mhz.
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Michael Baird
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:54 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Sector separation/isolation
>>>
>>> We are still experimenting with aligning sector's on our towers. We are 
>>> attempting to use 3 120 degree/13db/6.5 vb/7 degree downtilt, antennas 
>>> to cover 360 degrees. I just inspected the towers myself, and noticed 
>>> they are setup at 30 degrees/150 degrees/290 degrees (so they aren't 
>>> right exactly). So the problem that caused me to inspect the tower was 
>>> the signal level I can see the other AP's at.
>>>
>>> AP 30 can see AP 150 at -39 and AP 290 at -42.
>>> AP 150 can see AP 30 at -42 and AP 290 at -70.
>>> AP 290 can see AP 30 at -39 and AP 150 at -65.
>>>
>>> So I'm guessing that the reason 150/290 are much higher is because of 
>>> the additional 20 degrees between them. These AP's are on channels 
>>> 1/6/11, I'm wondering if I should worry about seeing the other AP's with 
>>> such a hot signal, and if so what are some good ways to isolate them better.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Michael Baird
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> 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/
>>>   
>>> 
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> 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/
>>   
>> 
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>> Version: 8.5.323 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 - Release Date: 05/01/09 
>> 17:52:00
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/

[WISPA] Monowall Voucher Issue

[Joe Miller]

Is anyone using the Voucher feature of the Monowall router? I'm looking for the 
"captive portal contents" srcipt to upload to the device. I only found this but 
it no longer exists, http://homepage.mac.com/mwiget/FileSharing17.html Can 
someone either post the script here or email it to me off list. This is what 
I'm trying to get working http://forum.m0n0.ch/index.php/topic,127.0.html I.m 
using the current version 1.3b16.


Thanks,


  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
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/