[WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Troy Settle
I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to the next,
forming a continuous L2 network.

 

Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  I
could see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to see
traffic from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could see OSPF
multicast traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few devices that are
bridged or switched in on the other side of the link.

 

The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on the
near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot and a
few minutes later, everything is back to normal.

 

I can't find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for
Dragonwave equipment, so I figured I'd ask here. does anyone have any
experience they wouldn't mind sharing about Dragonwaves?

 

Thanks,

 

-Troy

 

 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Cliff Leboeuf

Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

7/24/12 The Wall Street Journal

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: 
If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that 
happen. He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to 
bridges and roads, adding: The Internet didn't get invented on its own. 
Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money 
off the Internet.

It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is 
that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even 
in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation 
happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even 
once the government gets out of the way.

For many technologists, the idea of the Internet traces to Vannevar Bush, the 
presidential science adviser during World War II who oversaw the development of 
radar and the Manhattan Project. In a 1946 article in The Atlantic titled As 
We May Think, Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: 
Build what he called a memex through which wholly new forms of encyclopedias 
will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, 
ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified.

That fired imaginations, and by the 1960s technologists were trying to connect 
separate physical communications networks into one global network—a world-wide 
web. The federal government was involved, modestly, via the Pentagon's 
Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Its goal was not maintaining 
communications during a nuclear attack, and it didn't build the Internet. 
Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow 
technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: The creation of the Arpanet 
was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An 
Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks.

If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed 
the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit 
for hyperlinks.

But full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: 
Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the 
Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks. Researchers there 
also developed the first personal computer (the Xerox Alto) and the graphical 
user interface that still drives computer usage today.

According to a book about Xerox PARC, Dealers of Lightning (by Michael 
Hiltzik), its top researchers realized they couldn't wait for the government to 
connect different networks, so would have to do it themselves. We have a more 
immediate problem than they do, Robert Metcalfe told his colleague John Shoch 
in 1973. We have more networks than they do. Mr. Shoch later recalled that 
ARPA staffers were working under government funding and university contracts. 
They had contract administrators . . . and all that slow, lugubrious behavior 
to contend with.

So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company in 
the world? The answer explains the disconnect between a government-led view of 
business and how innovation actually happens.

Executives at Xerox headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., were focused on selling 
copiers. From their standpoint, the Ethernet was important only so that people 
in an office could link computers to share a copier. Then, in 1979, Steve Jobs 
negotiated an agreement whereby Xerox's venture-capital division invested $1 
million in Apple, with the requirement that Jobs get a full briefing on all the 
Xerox PARC innovations. They just had no idea what they had, Jobs later said, 
after launching hugely profitable Apple computers using concepts developed by 
Xerox.

Xerox's copier business was lucrative for decades, but the company eventually 
had years of losses during the digital revolution. Xerox managers can console 
themselves that it's rare for a company to make the transition from one 
technology era to another.

As for the government's role, the Internet was fully privatized in 1995, when a 
remaining piece of the network run by the National Science Foundation was 
closed—just as the commercial Web began to boom. Blogger Brian Carnell wrote in 
1999: The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large 
government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful protocol 
for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished. . . . In less than a 
decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the most 
important technological revolutions of the millennia.

It's important to understand the history of the Internet because it's too often 
wrongly cited to justify big government. It's also important to recognize that 
building great 

Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Fred Goldstein

At 7/31/2012 08:57 AM, Cliff Lebouef wrote:


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

7/24/12 The Wall Street Journal


Yes, Crovitz' article got some serious reactions from the people who 
were actually there, the Internet old timers.  He began by confusing 
Ethernet with Internet, perhaps because they rhyme and are both 
high-techy things, which to a finance guy like him make them 
equivalent.  Then he completely distorts the history of the ARPANET 
and how the Internet evolved from it.  He wasn't there.  I was, and I 
was at BBN in the 1970s when we were building the ARPANET for the 
government.  And I was at BBN in 1994 when they bought three of the 
previously government-sponsored NSFnet regional nets from their 
university owners and created a commercial ISP business.


Just goes to show you that when Rupert Murdoch wants to spread a lie, 
he'll spread a real whopper.



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Brad Belton
I think the point of the article is once big government got out of the way,
private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and it flourished.  

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to
justify big government.

 

At 7/31/2012 08:57 AM, Cliff Lebouef wrote:




Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

7/24/12 The Wall Street Journal


Yes, Crovitz' article got some serious reactions from the people who were
actually there, the Internet old timers.  He began by confusing Ethernet
with Internet, perhaps because they rhyme and are both high-techy things,
which to a finance guy like him make them equivalent.  Then he completely
distorts the history of the ARPANET and how the Internet evolved from it.
He wasn't there.  I was, and I was at BBN in the 1970s when we were building
the ARPANET for the government.  And I was at BBN in 1994 when they bought
three of the previously government-sponsored NSFnet regional nets from their
university owners and created a commercial ISP business.

Just goes to show you that when Rupert Murdoch wants to spread a lie, he'll
spread a real whopper.




 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Jeff Broadwick - Lists
Either way, President Obama’s statement that the internet was created so
that “all companies could make money off the Internet is patently false.  

I'm not one that disregards the positive things that have come out of
(particularly) government defense and space spending, but those are side
benefits, not the primary purpose.

Regards,

Jeff
Sales Manager, Blue Technology
574-935-8484 x106 (US/Can)
574-220-7826 (Cell)
+1 574-935-8484 (Int'l) 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to
justify big government.

At 7/31/2012 08:57 AM, Cliff Lebouef wrote:


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

7/24/12 The Wall Street Journal

Yes, Crovitz' article got some serious reactions from the people who were
actually there, the Internet old timers.  He began by confusing Ethernet
with Internet, perhaps because they rhyme and are both high-techy things,
which to a finance guy like him make them equivalent.  Then he completely
distorts the history of the ARPANET and how the Internet evolved from it. 
He wasn't there.  I was, and I was at BBN in the 1970s when we were building
the ARPANET for the government.  And I was at BBN in 1994 when they bought
three of the previously government-sponsored NSFnet regional nets from their
university owners and created a commercial ISP business.

Just goes to show you that when Rupert Murdoch wants to spread a lie, he'll
spread a real whopper.


 --
 Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com   
 ionary Consulting        http://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Fred Goldstein
At 7/31/2012 09:28 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

I think the point of the article is once big government got out of 
the way, private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and 
it flourished.

Yes, that was the proopaganda point he was trying to make.  But it 
was a flat-out lie when applied to the Internet.  The government 
funded the development of the Internet.  The government built and 
paid to run the Internet for years, for its own purposes.  The 
government then let more and more non-governmental users (NSFnet 
educational) onto its Internet.  All during this time, commercial 
internets (small-i) could have been built, and some were, but the 
critical mass of widespread connectivity happened when the 
government's Internet (big-I) was opened up to the general public, 
and government funding then ended.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own 
facts.  Crovitz made stuff up that was just totally wrong, two 
quadrants opposed to the truth.  He was no more accurate than 
Stalin's propagandists.

In plain fact, the key move that made any public internet possible 
was a regulatory decision made by the FCC in the mid-1970s, the 
Sharing and Resale decision.  They ordered ATT and other LECs to 
permit private lines to be shared and resold.  Before that, a private 
line could only be run between a single customers' own sites.  A line 
to your own customer was only available to licensed common 
carriers.  A BBNer, Ralph Alter, went out and got FCC approval as the 
first packet-switched common carrier, PCI, in 1973.  Shortly 
afterwards, BBN itself started up Telenet, while Tyment and Graphnet 
also got licensed.  After the Sharing and Resale decision, becoming 
an ISP didn't require a common carrier license.  Then 1980's Computer 
II decision forced the Bells to sell basic services to competitors 
if they wanted to offer enhanced services.  The revocation of that 
in 2005 led to the NN kerfuffle and the demise of more wireline ISPs.

Jeff Broadwick adds,
Either way, President Obama's statement that the internet was created so
that all companies could make money off the Internet is patently false.

Well, no.  His statement, read in context of the full paragraph, 
clearly meant something else entirely.  His so that was not meant 
as created for the express purpose of, but as its perfectly good 
alternative meaning with the effect that.  The ARPANET was created 
*not* to survive nuclear war (it was not a Strategic network) but to 
permit researchers (at industry and universities, as well as within 
the government) to share resources.  The more decentralized but still 
subsidized Internet evolved in the 1980s.  When it was privatized by 
the Clinton administration, companies could make then money off of it.

(I note that the Romney campaign has been playing the selective 
editing trick.  President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about 
highways and schools when he said, you didn't create that, but by 
editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he 
pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their 
own businesses.  You can pretty much make anyone seem to say anything 
that way, as Colbert viewers know.)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Jeff Broadwick - Lists
He said what he said Fred.  He's the guy who's supposed to be the
uber-communicator.  Did some of it get taken out of context?  Perhaps, but
the overall context of saying that your success wasn't because you were
smart or worked hard was even worse.

Back to work now.

Regards,

Jeff
Sales Manager, Blue Technology
574-935-8484 x106 (US/Can)
574-220-7826 (Cell)
+1 574-935-8484 (Int'l)

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to
justify big government.

At 7/31/2012 09:28 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

I think the point of the article is once big government got out of 
the way, private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and 
it flourished.

Yes, that was the proopaganda point he was trying to make.  But it 
was a flat-out lie when applied to the Internet.  The government 
funded the development of the Internet.  The government built and 
paid to run the Internet for years, for its own purposes.  The 
government then let more and more non-governmental users (NSFnet 
educational) onto its Internet.  All during this time, commercial 
internets (small-i) could have been built, and some were, but the 
critical mass of widespread connectivity happened when the 
government's Internet (big-I) was opened up to the general public, 
and government funding then ended.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own 
facts.  Crovitz made stuff up that was just totally wrong, two 
quadrants opposed to the truth.  He was no more accurate than 
Stalin's propagandists.

In plain fact, the key move that made any public internet possible 
was a regulatory decision made by the FCC in the mid-1970s, the 
Sharing and Resale decision.  They ordered ATT and other LECs to 
permit private lines to be shared and resold.  Before that, a private 
line could only be run between a single customers' own sites.  A line 
to your own customer was only available to licensed common 
carriers.  A BBNer, Ralph Alter, went out and got FCC approval as the 
first packet-switched common carrier, PCI, in 1973.  Shortly 
afterwards, BBN itself started up Telenet, while Tyment and Graphnet 
also got licensed.  After the Sharing and Resale decision, becoming 
an ISP didn't require a common carrier license.  Then 1980's Computer 
II decision forced the Bells to sell basic services to competitors 
if they wanted to offer enhanced services.  The revocation of that 
in 2005 led to the NN kerfuffle and the demise of more wireline ISPs.

Jeff Broadwick adds,
Either way, President Obama's statement that the internet was created so
that all companies could make money off the Internet is patently false.

Well, no.  His statement, read in context of the full paragraph, 
clearly meant something else entirely.  His so that was not meant 
as created for the express purpose of, but as its perfectly good 
alternative meaning with the effect that.  The ARPANET was created 
*not* to survive nuclear war (it was not a Strategic network) but to 
permit researchers (at industry and universities, as well as within 
the government) to share resources.  The more decentralized but still 
subsidized Internet evolved in the 1980s.  When it was privatized by 
the Clinton administration, companies could make then money off of it.

(I note that the Romney campaign has been playing the selective 
editing trick.  President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about 
highways and schools when he said, you didn't create that, but by 
editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he 
pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their 
own businesses.  You can pretty much make anyone seem to say anything 
that way, as Colbert viewers know.)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Blake Covarrubias
Hi,

I have a DragonWave Horizon Compact, and an AirPair 100 in the network  I've 
never experienced an issue like this on either unit. Both have been rock solid 
since installed. Sorry, but I don't think I can be much of assistance with 
these.

What you described sounds like something I'd see on a Trango. I've experienced 
similar traffic lockups  ethernet instability on several of their models. A 
reboot always 'fixes' it.

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:

 I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to the next, 
 forming a continuous L2 network.
  
 Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  I could 
 see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to see traffic 
 from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could see OSPF multicast 
 traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few devices that are bridged or 
 switched in on the other side of the link.
  
 The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on the 
 near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot and a 
 few minutes later, everything is back to normal.
  
 I can’t find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for Dragonwave 
 equipment, so I figured I’d ask here… does anyone have any experience they 
 wouldn’t mind sharing about Dragonwaves?
  
 Thanks,
  
 -Troy
  
  
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

2012-07-31 Thread Dan Petermann
  President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about highways and schools 
when he said, you didn't create that, 

The problem lies with that statement itself. They (business owners) did create 
the highways and schools.

Who paid the taxes to build those roads?
Who paid the taxes to build those schools?

Did business owners get exemptions to not pay for those things? 
Or did they get taxed at a higher rate because they made more money?

As roads are so ubiquitous, and they apparently make business thrive, why do 
thousands of business fail every year? Are there no roads where they are 
located?

On Jul 31, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

 At 7/31/2012 09:28 AM, Brad Belton wrote:
 
 I think the point of the article is once big government got out of 
 the way, private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and 
 it flourished.
 
 Yes, that was the proopaganda point he was trying to make.  But it 
 was a flat-out lie when applied to the Internet.  The government 
 funded the development of the Internet.  The government built and 
 paid to run the Internet for years, for its own purposes.  The 
 government then let more and more non-governmental users (NSFnet 
 educational) onto its Internet.  All during this time, commercial 
 internets (small-i) could have been built, and some were, but the 
 critical mass of widespread connectivity happened when the 
 government's Internet (big-I) was opened up to the general public, 
 and government funding then ended.
 
 Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own 
 facts.  Crovitz made stuff up that was just totally wrong, two 
 quadrants opposed to the truth.  He was no more accurate than 
 Stalin's propagandists.
 
 In plain fact, the key move that made any public internet possible 
 was a regulatory decision made by the FCC in the mid-1970s, the 
 Sharing and Resale decision.  They ordered ATT and other LECs to 
 permit private lines to be shared and resold.  Before that, a private 
 line could only be run between a single customers' own sites.  A line 
 to your own customer was only available to licensed common 
 carriers.  A BBNer, Ralph Alter, went out and got FCC approval as the 
 first packet-switched common carrier, PCI, in 1973.  Shortly 
 afterwards, BBN itself started up Telenet, while Tyment and Graphnet 
 also got licensed.  After the Sharing and Resale decision, becoming 
 an ISP didn't require a common carrier license.  Then 1980's Computer 
 II decision forced the Bells to sell basic services to competitors 
 if they wanted to offer enhanced services.  The revocation of that 
 in 2005 led to the NN kerfuffle and the demise of more wireline ISPs.
 
 Jeff Broadwick adds,
 Either way, President Obama's statement that the internet was created so
 that all companies could make money off the Internet is patently false.
 
 Well, no.  His statement, read in context of the full paragraph, 
 clearly meant something else entirely.  His so that was not meant 
 as created for the express purpose of, but as its perfectly good 
 alternative meaning with the effect that.  The ARPANET was created 
 *not* to survive nuclear war (it was not a Strategic network) but to 
 permit researchers (at industry and universities, as well as within 
 the government) to share resources.  The more decentralized but still 
 subsidized Internet evolved in the 1980s.  When it was privatized by 
 the Clinton administration, companies could make then money off of it.
 
 (I note that the Romney campaign has been playing the selective 
 editing trick.  President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about 
 highways and schools when he said, you didn't create that, but by 
 editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he 
 pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their 
 own businesses.  You can pretty much make anyone seem to say anything 
 that way, as Colbert viewers know.)
 
  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein at ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Brad Belton
I've only seen this behavior twice from a Trango radio...it pains me to
admit the first time was user error.  This happened during a new
installation.  I was in a hurry.it turned out that one side had opmode
enabled and the other was not yet turned on!  That'll pretty much guarantee
one way traffic.

The second time was a faulty GigaLINK 11GHz ODU (Serial # 0007).   After
years of reliable service, this path would at random times begin to lose
link lock status on one side.  Trango Support was extremely responsive (as
always) and ultimately identified which of the four components (IDU or ODU)
needed to be replaced.  This was not an easy task given the random nature of
the problem, but extremely helpful given the location of this link.  Trango
saved us countless man hours by positively identifying which IDU or ODU was
faulty prior to us making the trip out to the site.

If you are experiencing traffic lockups  Ethernet instability on several of
Trango's models I would suggest looking into what common denominators are in
play on these links.  We have not had the trouble you are seeing with Trango
radios.

Best,

Brad


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:31 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

Hi,

I have a DragonWave Horizon Compact, and an AirPair 100 in the network 
I've never experienced an issue like this on either unit. Both have been
rock solid since installed. Sorry, but I don't think I can be much of
assistance with these.

What you described sounds like something I'd see on a Trango. I've
experienced similar traffic lockups  ethernet instability on several of
their models. A reboot always 'fixes' it.

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:

 I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to the
next, forming a continuous L2 network.
  
 Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  I
could see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to see
traffic from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could see OSPF
multicast traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few devices that are
bridged or switched in on the other side of the link.
  
 The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on the
near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot and a
few minutes later, everything is back to normal.
  
 I can't find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for
Dragonwave equipment, so I figured I'd ask here. does anyone have any
experience they wouldn't mind sharing about Dragonwaves?
  
 Thanks,
  
 -Troy
  
  
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread David Hulsebus
A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in 
the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping, 
reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in 
and sent me a how-to.

Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the 
TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working 
with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of 
Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

YMMV, Dave

-- 
David Hulsebus
Portative Technologies, LLC
1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
Corydon, IN 47112
812-738-7007
www.portative.com

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Kurt Fankhauser
why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in 
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping, 
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in 
 and sent me a how-to.
 
 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the 
 TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working 
 with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of 
 Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.
 
 YMMV, Dave
 
 -- 
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Steve Barnes
I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not an 
actual detected floor but a calculation.

Steve Barnes
General Manager
PCSWIN / RC-WiFi

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in 
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping, 
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in 
 and sent me a how-to.
 
 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the 
 TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working 
 with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of 
 Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.
 
 YMMV, Dave
 
 --
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Josh Luthman
The calculation is garbage.  I've never seen anything stronger than a -90.
 That's bogus.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote:

 I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not
 an actual detected floor but a calculation.

 Steve Barnes
 General Manager
 PCSWIN / RC-WiFi

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

 why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net
 wrote:

  A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in
  the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping,
  reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in
  and sent me a how-to.
 
  Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the
  TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working
  with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of
  Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.
 
  YMMV, Dave
 
  --
  David Hulsebus
  Portative Technologies, LLC
  1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
  Corydon, IN 47112
  812-738-7007
  www.portative.com
 
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Blake Covarrubias
On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote:

 If you are experiencing traffic lockups  Ethernet instability on several of
 Trango's models I would suggest looking into what common denominators are in
 play on these links.  We have not had the trouble you are seeing with Trango
 radios.

We've been working with Trango from day one on this issue which is now going on 
its 10th month with no resolution. Trango seems to believe this a problem with 
the Broadcom ethernet chipset in the Apex and ApexPlus radios. The problem 
doesn't seem to be related to our network as we can replace a problematic link 
with a Trango GigaPlus or DragonWave Horizon Compact and the problem goes away.

The only common denominator is those particular Trango models.

--
Blake Covarrubias

 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:31 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?
 
 Hi,
 
 I have a DragonWave Horizon Compact, and an AirPair 100 in the network 
 I've never experienced an issue like this on either unit. Both have been
 rock solid since installed. Sorry, but I don't think I can be much of
 assistance with these.
 
 What you described sounds like something I'd see on a Trango. I've
 experienced similar traffic lockups  ethernet instability on several of
 their models. A reboot always 'fixes' it.
 
 --
 Blake Covarrubias
 
 On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:
 
 I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to the
 next, forming a continuous L2 network.
 
 Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  I
 could see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to see
 traffic from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could see OSPF
 multicast traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few devices that are
 bridged or switched in on the other side of the link.
 
 The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on the
 near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot and a
 few minutes later, everything is back to normal.
 
 I can't find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for
 Dragonwave equipment, so I figured I'd ask here. does anyone have any
 experience they wouldn't mind sharing about Dragonwaves?
 
 Thanks,
 
 -Troy
 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Bret Clark
Well that's pretty screwy if that's the case...not familiar with UBNT 
but something seems foo there!

The Tranzeo TR5a was the last product we used from Tranzeo that actually 
worked okay...the major thing I don't like about them through is the 
client didn't automatically sweep if you needed to do an emergency 
frequency change on the base.

On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
 I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not an 
 actual detected floor but a calculation.

 Steve Barnes
 General Manager
 PCSWIN / RC-WiFi

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

 why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping,
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in
 and sent me a how-to.

 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the
 TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working
 with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of
 Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

 YMMV, Dave

 --
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Cameron Crum
Noise doesn't change for different radios, only how it is reported. I can't
imagine that you would have -105 on a busy tower if even a couple nearby
radios are in the same band. Either they are under reporting or the others
are over reporting, but it seems low for a busy tower.

Cameron

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote:

 Well that's pretty screwy if that's the case...not familiar with UBNT
 but something seems foo there!

 The Tranzeo TR5a was the last product we used from Tranzeo that actually
 worked okay...the major thing I don't like about them through is the
 client didn't automatically sweep if you needed to do an emergency
 frequency change on the base.

 On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
  I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is
 not an actual detected floor but a calculation.
 
  Steve Barnes
  General Manager
  PCSWIN / RC-WiFi
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
  Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support
 
  why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?
 
  Sent from my iPhone
 
  On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net
 wrote:
 
  A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in
  the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping,
  reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in
  and sent me a how-to.
 
  Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the
  TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working
  with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of
  Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.
 
  YMMV, Dave
 
  --
  David Hulsebus
  Portative Technologies, LLC
  1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
  Corydon, IN 47112
  812-738-7007
  www.portative.com
 
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Kurt Fankhauser
I have 2 Tranzeo TR5a-24's sitting here at the office I would like to see go
if anyone wants them hit me offlist.

Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Bret Clark
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:15 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

Well that's pretty screwy if that's the case...not familiar with UBNT but
something seems foo there!

The Tranzeo TR5a was the last product we used from Tranzeo that actually
worked okay...the major thing I don't like about them through is the client
didn't automatically sweep if you needed to do an emergency frequency change
on the base.

On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
 I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not
an actual detected floor but a calculation.

 Steve Barnes
 General Manager
 PCSWIN / RC-WiFi

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

 why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net
wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in 
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping, 
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way 
 in and sent me a how-to.

 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use 
 the TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love 
 working with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower 
 instead of Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

 YMMV, Dave

 --
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Joel White. Sent From My Droid
Kurt, 

I don't want them!!! Lol. Give me a call when you get a chance. Hopefully no 
storms this week.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Kurt Fankhauser li...@wavelinc.com wrote:

I have 2 Tranzeo TR5a-24's sitting here at the office I would like to see go
if anyone wants them hit me offlist.

Kurt Fankhauser
Wavelinc Communications
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
http://www.wavelinc.com
tel. 419-562-6405
fax. 419-617-0110

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Bret Clark
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:15 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

Well that's pretty screwy if that's the case...not familiar with UBNT but
something seems foo there!

The Tranzeo TR5a was the last product we used from Tranzeo that actually
worked okay...the major thing I don't like about them through is the client
didn't automatically sweep if you needed to do an emergency frequency change
on the base.

On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
 I am not sure it is. I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not
an actual detected floor but a calculation.

 Steve Barnes
 General Manager
 PCSWIN / RC-WiFi

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

 why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net
wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in 
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping, 
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way 
 in and sent me a how-to.

 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing. I still use 
 the TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love 
 working with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower 
 instead of Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

 YMMV, Dave

 --
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com

_

 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_

 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_

 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

_

Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

_

Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread Josh Luthman
Kurt and I should be good this week.  The weekend and next week is a
totally different situation, though =(

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Joel White. Sent From My Droid 
jo...@nexgenaccess.com wrote:

 Kurt,

 I don't want them!!! Lol. Give me a call when you get a chance. Hopefully
 no storms this week.
 --
 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 Kurt Fankhauser li...@wavelinc.com wrote:

 I have 2 Tranzeo TR5a-24's sitting here at the office I would like to see go
 if anyone wants them hit me offlist.

 Kurt Fankhauser
 Wavelinc Communications
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 http://www.wavelinc.com
 tel. 419-562-6405

 fax. 419-617-0110

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On

 Behalf Of Bret Clark
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:15 PM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

 Well that's pretty screwy if that's the case...not familiar with UBNT but

 something seems foo there!

 The Tranzeo TR5a was the last product we used from Tranzeo that actually
 worked okay...the major thing I don't like about them through is the client
 didn't automatically sweep if you neede
  d to do
 an emergency frequency change
 on the base.

 On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:
  I am not sure it is.  I think the UBNT Noise Floor on their radios is not
 an actual detected floor but a calculation.

 
  Steve Barnes
  General Manager
  PCSWIN / RC-WiFi
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]

  On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
  Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:48 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support
 
  why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 
  Sent from my iPhone
 
  On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net
 wrote:
 
  A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in

  the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken
   spent
 hours helping,
  reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way
  in and sent me a how-to.
 
  Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use

  the TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love
  working with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower
  instead of Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

 
  YMMV, Dave
 
  --
  David Hulsebus
  Portative Technologies, LLC
  1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
  Corydon, IN 47112
  812-738-7007

  www.portative.com
 
 
 --

  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org

  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 --

  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org

  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 --

  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org

  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 --

 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 --

 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo support

2012-07-31 Thread David Hulsebus
If you've ever taken a Tranzeo apart you will see the radio it entirely 
enveloped in metal.  Including metal foil tape used to seal the radio 
card inside the enclosure with nothing more than a 1/8 hole to plug the 
pigtail (ufl connector) into the radio card. The NanoBridges on the 
other hand have a hole behind the dish that lets rf energy in.

In my experience the noise floor on a tower is better for Nanostations 
than NanoBridges. The PowerStations are nearly as good as the Tranzeos 
for the noise floor.  I just replaced 4 Tranzeo links last week with 
NanoBridges after a lightning strike and in every case they out 
performed the Tranzeo's, but the noise floor for each NanoBridge is down 
to -85 to -90 so it's a good thing my signals are -60 to -65.

I'm not saying Tranzeo doesn't have any issues, just that when doing 4 
PtP links in 5.7-5.8 GHz with NanoBridges, plus 2 Rocket M Ap's on 120 
deg antennas and 2 Nanostation M5 AP's. There's not a lot of wiggle room 
for more.

Dave Hulsebus

On 7/31/2012 12:48 PM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
 why is the tranzeo noise floor lower than ubnt stuff?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:14 PM, David Hulsebus cont...@portative.net wrote:

 A nod to the folks at Tranzeo who helped me unbrick a radio 180 ft in
 the air. And I'm the one who bricked it. Ken spent hours helping,
 reconfigured two systems there to replicate my configs. Found a way in
 and sent me a how-to.

 Price upfront is not my only criteria for purchasing.  I still use the
 TR5a series for backhauls where I only need 20MB links. Love working
 with a -105 noise floor on the Tranzeo's on a busy tower instead of
 Rockets and NanoBridges that sit at -85.

 YMMV, Dave

 -- 
 David Hulsebus
 Portative Technologies, LLC
 1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
 Corydon, IN 47112
 812-738-7007
 www.portative.com

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

-- 
David Hulsebus
Portative Technologies, LLC
1995 Allison Lane, Suite 100
Corydon, IN 47112
812-738-7007
www.portative.com

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Brad Belton
Interesting.  We have a few Apex  ApexPlus radios deployed and haven't seen
this.  We have preferred to use the GigaPlus in most cases.  What are the
Apex radios plugged into?  (e.g. Cisco, MikroTik Routerboards, switches etc,
etc.)  Does the cable distance make a difference?  

Are you seeing this with the SFP port too?

Thanks,

Brad 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:54 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote:

 If you are experiencing traffic lockups  Ethernet instability on 
 several of Trango's models I would suggest looking into what common 
 denominators are in play on these links.  We have not had the trouble 
 you are seeing with Trango radios.

We've been working with Trango from day one on this issue which is now going
on its 10th month with no resolution. Trango seems to believe this a problem
with the Broadcom ethernet chipset in the Apex and ApexPlus radios. The
problem doesn't seem to be related to our network as we can replace a
problematic link with a Trango GigaPlus or DragonWave Horizon Compact and
the problem goes away.

The only common denominator is those particular Trango models.

--
Blake Covarrubias

 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:31 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?
 
 Hi,
 
 I have a DragonWave Horizon Compact, and an AirPair 100 in the network 
  I've never experienced an issue like this on either unit. Both have 
 been rock solid since installed. Sorry, but I don't think I can be 
 much of assistance with these.
 
 What you described sounds like something I'd see on a Trango. I've 
 experienced similar traffic lockups  ethernet instability on several 
 of their models. A reboot always 'fixes' it.
 
 --
 Blake Covarrubias
 
 On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:
 
 I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to 
 the
 next, forming a continuous L2 network.
 
 Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  
 I
 could see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to 
 see traffic from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could 
 see OSPF multicast traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few 
 devices that are bridged or switched in on the other side of the link.
 
 The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on 
 the
 near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot 
 and a few minutes later, everything is back to normal.
 
 I can't find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for
 Dragonwave equipment, so I figured I'd ask here. does anyone have any 
 experience they wouldn't mind sharing about Dragonwaves?
 
 Thanks,
 
 -Troy
 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?

2012-07-31 Thread Blake Covarrubias
The radios are plugged into Cisco Catalyst 3750, 3550, or 2950 switches. We're 
using the copper ports. Haven't tested with SFP.

I know of another operator with this same issue. I believe he was using Juniper 
switches. Trango never solved the problem for him either. His workaround was to 
connect the radios into Juniper routers, and transport his L2 via MPLS. AFAIK 
he hasn't had any issues with this.

--
Blake Covarrubias

On Jul 31, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote:

 Interesting.  We have a few Apex  ApexPlus radios deployed and haven't seen
 this.  We have preferred to use the GigaPlus in most cases.  What are the
 Apex radios plugged into?  (e.g. Cisco, MikroTik Routerboards, switches etc,
 etc.)  Does the cable distance make a difference?  
 
 Are you seeing this with the SFP port too?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Brad 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:54 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?
 
 On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Brad Belton b...@belwave.com wrote:
 
 If you are experiencing traffic lockups  Ethernet instability on 
 several of Trango's models I would suggest looking into what common 
 denominators are in play on these links.  We have not had the trouble 
 you are seeing with Trango radios.
 
 We've been working with Trango from day one on this issue which is now going
 on its 10th month with no resolution. Trango seems to believe this a problem
 with the Broadcom ethernet chipset in the Apex and ApexPlus radios. The
 problem doesn't seem to be related to our network as we can replace a
 problematic link with a Trango GigaPlus or DragonWave Horizon Compact and
 the problem goes away.
 
 The only common denominator is those particular Trango models.
 
 --
 Blake Covarrubias
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
 On Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
 Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:31 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dragonwave Horizon Compact - one way traffic only?
 
 Hi,
 
 I have a DragonWave Horizon Compact, and an AirPair 100 in the network 
  I've never experienced an issue like this on either unit. Both have 
 been rock solid since installed. Sorry, but I don't think I can be 
 much of assistance with these.
 
 What you described sounds like something I'd see on a Trango. I've 
 experienced similar traffic lockups  ethernet instability on several 
 of their models. A reboot always 'fixes' it.
 
 --
 Blake Covarrubias
 
 On Jul 31, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:
 
 I have a backbone with 5 licensed links.  Each link is switched to 
 the
 next, forming a continuous L2 network.
 
 Yesterday evening, we had a partial breakdown on the very last link.  
 I
 could see traffic /from/ the far end, but the far end was unable to 
 see traffic from this side.  I could see discovery packets, I could 
 see OSPF multicast traffic.  I could even see some stuff from a few 
 devices that are bridged or switched in on the other side of the link.
 
 The last device that was responsive to me, was the Horizon Compact on 
 the
 near side of that last link.  Nothing notable in the logs, so I reboot 
 and a few minutes later, everything is back to normal.
 
 I can't find much of anything in terms of peer-to-peer support for
 Dragonwave equipment, so I figured I'd ask here. does anyone have any 
 experience they wouldn't mind sharing about Dragonwaves?
 
 Thanks,
 
 -Troy
 
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless