Re: [WISPA] DNS Name Resolver for WISP

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Colton Conor 
wrote:

> What dns name solvers do you use to hand out to your customers via DHCP
> and why? Today we just hand out Google's 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as a name
> resolvers. I recently learned about OpenDNS's free service for homes where
> a home user can monitor and potentially block certain websites, but that
> would require the home to signup at open dns, and then enter open DNS in
> their router. However if we handed out OpenDNS's IPs instead of googles,
> and provided a gateway, then that would remove that step of the client
> having to enter opendns IPs into their router right?
>
> Does OpenDNS have a service for ISP's? That gives us insight as to where
> traffic on our network is heading based dns lookups? I know about Netflow
> etc, but doing this though DNS seems like a cool option as well. We
> wouldn't want to block anything as an ISP, but it would be useful to know
> the top visited site by our customers is facebook.com for example.
>
> If not OpenDNS, then is there some other hosted DNS service for ISP's?
>
>
Self-host your own Unbound servers, use that as cache to a hosted DNS
service like OpenDNS, Symantec or other already blocking security threats
but letting personal content decisions up to the subscriber.


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

Re: [WISPA] AirFiber Snow issues

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Robert Clark rcl...@boltinternet.com
wrote:

 Looking at acquiring AirFiber back haul but I am concerned that the front
 of the antenna is very flat and that snow would stick to it and degrade and
 possibly take down the link?

 Has anyone seen this

 We will be using them on a 2 mile link and need 99.999 uptime




How is the spectrum interference in your area in UNII-2e and UNII-3 bands ?
AirFiber does not only come in 24 GHz, can also use 5 GHz.


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

Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as
 options for purchasing internet.  The government instead of regulating
 should encourage competition in the free market.  WISPs are one such
 competitor.


WISPs are prevented by laws of Electromagnetism and Communications to
direct compete with CableCo and TelCo for most customers, so this argument
actually justifies Title II treatment since CableCo and TelCo are the only
ones most US citizens can choose from.

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

Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Networks New product released

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Brough Turner broughtur...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 8/5/14 6:38 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
   On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
 wrote:

   http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html

How to operate an outdoor radio with 4 spatial streams with
 dual-polarized antennas ? It seems I'm missing something...

  Rubens

 ___
 Wireless mailing 
 listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  Rubens,

 It appears they get their four independent streams using two polarities
 (HV) of each of two channels (i.e. two different frequency bands).  That
 should work, assuming correct channel state information (CSI) is fedback
 for each separate stream. Apparently Mimosa is using the Quantenna chips
 which are claimed to do just that, so this is very plausible (and very
 impressive!).  Of course, this does mean finding more 5 GHz spectrum, but
 running two separate 40 MHz radios with MIMO is a more robust way to use 80
 MHz of 5 GHz spectrum than running an 80 MHz channel directly.


That's a nice way to do outdoor wireless, but that's not 4 spatial streams.
To be spatial streams it needs to be in the geometry domain, not in the
frequency domain or in the time domain. So I would not call it 4x4 MIMO.


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

Re: [WISPA] Mimosa B5-160 v UBNT AF5-US Chart (working)

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
wrote:

 Off topic, are you guys based in Columbia?


 .co, .me, .tv, .io, .tk and a few other country-code TLDs adopted a
generic way of selling, so only a few .co domains are from people from
Colombia. It only shows that they preferred to invest in product design
instead of buying the domain from the company that once used mimosa.com.

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

Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Networks New product released

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

   http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html


How to operate an outdoor radio with 4 spatial streams with dual-polarized
antennas ? It seems I'm missing something...


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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP - Who is using successfully?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Matt Brendle 
mattagator.mailingli...@gmail.com wrote:

 So a question for the masses.  We are selling VoIP services and the number
 of Support Calls we get about poor performance is more than I would
 expect.  Our basic setup is UBNT backhauls and APs, Mikrotik infrastructure
 routers, and CISCO/Linksys ATAs.  Primarily Vitelity accounts.  We get
 complaints of choppiness and other issues, and I wanted to see what others
 are using successfully.  I am currently making a test procedure to try to
 find out where the issue is, but if anybody has success stories and example
 setups that would be great.



 I know that is a rather broad question, but I want to make this work and
 get our Support Calls down.




Besides the air side of the question, how is the network side ? How good is
the connection from your network to the Vitelity SIP and media servers ?
Although I would guess your issue is on the air side, good diagnosing
starts by not assuming anything...

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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

  Better CPU, better rf shielding, 256qam, 80 MHz channels...


The pictures didn't inspire me much as having better RF shielding. Are you
sure of that ?


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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM, wi...@metrocom.ca wrote:

 I saw that as well. But again, if this is the Lite product, is there a
 higher level product to come, perhaps with GPS?


Possibilities I've identified so far:
- 160 MHz support
- AirPrism
- MU-MIMO (n/a to PTP)


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

Re: [WISPA] Redirect via Edgerouter Lite - 3

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:11 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote:

  Can the Edgerouter Lite - 3 redirect via IP or Mac to a PAY your Bill
 web page?
 \Thanx
 NGL


This would require taking the ERL-3 out of FastPath. If you can survive the
performance hit, such kind of redirect require CLI tuning, not available on
the web interface, but I see no reason it couldn't be done.


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

Re: [WISPA] Redirect via Edgerouter Lite - 3

[Rubens Kuhl]

Ubiquiti claims 1Mpps for ERL-3 using acceleration; considering only the
MIPS core without the Cavium enhancements my guess is something like 100
kpps or less, or 1/10 of the normal performance.


Rubens



On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:52 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote:

  What sort of performance hit are you talking about?
 NGL

  *From:* Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:39 PM
 *To:* WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Redirect via Edgerouter Lite - 3




 On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:11 PM, ~NGL~ n...@ngl.net wrote:

  Can the Edgerouter Lite - 3 redirect via IP or Mac to a PAY your Bill
 web page?
 \Thanx
 NGL


 This would require taking the ERL-3 out of FastPath. If you can survive
 the performance hit, such kind of redirect require CLI tuning, not
 available on the web interface, but I see no reason it couldn't be done.


 Rubens


 --

 ___
 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] Selling ISP

[Rubens Kuhl]

In a low interest rate market, I don't believe in financing any part of a
selling business. But if there is some disagreement about how much it
values, some kind of performance payment could be in order. But financing
per se is not the role of seller; banks exist for that.

Rubens



On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:16 PM, can...@believewireless.net 
p...@believewireless.net wrote:

 Every business attorney and accountant has told me the same thing, cash
 only.


 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Cameron Crum cc...@wispmon.com wrote:

 Doug,

 The problem I see with that is that you will most likely have to take the
 other party to court to enforce the terms of your agreement if one of the
 terms is breached. It could take months or even years to get a final
 judgement at which time there may be nothing left. This may be good advice
 for a non-wisp business, but in the fast paced world of broadband,
 customers will likely flee before a resolution is reached. If the buyer is
 left insolvent, you are left with nothing, and may be on the hook for all
 your  own legal fees. I talked to three different business attorneys and
 they all told me to run from any seller financed deal regardless of who the
 buyer was. Again, if the buyer can't get financing on their own, are they a
 good buyer?


 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Hass, Douglas A. d...@franczek.comwrote:

  Of course!  You have to have a willing seller and buyer to start.  My
 point is that setting preconditions before you get started (as a buyer or
 as a seller) unnecessarily limits what you ultimately would be able to do.
 Don't take options off the table until you have a specific deal to
 consider.  Then is the time to say I'm only taking cash or I'll finance,
 but only with X, Y, and Z terms that protect me.



 Doug





 *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
 Behalf Of *CBB - Jay Fuller
 *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:53 PM

 *To:* WISPA General List
 *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Selling ISP




 Depends on how bad you want to sell ...we don't always want to buy.

 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

 - Reply message -
 From: Hass, Douglas A. d...@franczek.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Selling ISP
 Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2014 2:08 PM



 Cameron--



 There's lots of ways to structure the deal so that you're protected,
 even if the buyer is a complete imbecile and even if the buyer doesn't have
 cash up front.  If you want to sell or if you want to buy, don't let the
 all-cash restriction prevent you from making a deal.  If you end up in
 court chasing payments from the buyer, then you likely didn't draft your
 agreement carefully enough given your tolerance for risk (of course, your
 due diligence should be telling you whether the buyer is an imbecile, and
 that information should inform what kind of deal you're willing to accept).



 To categorically reject buyers who don't have 100% cash to hand you at
 closing might mean leaving money on the table or more flexible terms from
 someone who can put together a more attractive end package.  In that sense,
 it works like selling real estate.  The all-cash offer isn't always your
 best one.



 To Randy's point--Jab has undergone a major shakeup at the top.  Many of
 the senior executive staff have departed in the last few months.  That
 might account for some of the quietness.  I don't have any inside
 information, just what I learned trying to round up potential panelists and
 speakers for WISPAmerica.



 Doug



 *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.orgwireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 *On Behalf Of *Cameron Crum
 *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 1:45 PM
 *To:* WISPA General List
 *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Selling ISP



 The seller is not a bank. Why should they take on all the risk? What
 happens if the buyer is a complete imbecile and runs the network into the
 ground and defaults on payments? Now you are in court suing for money you
 will most likely never see, and even if you retake possession of the
 network, it may be in shambles or most of your customers have left. We
 walked away from a couple of buyers who would not pony up the cash. I'd say
 as one who sold a wisp, if the buyer can't afford it, or can't arrange
 their own financing, you don't want to sell.



 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
 wrote:

 There's many more buyers out there.





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


  --

 *From: *Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com


 *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org

 *Sent: *Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00:34 AM


 *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Selling ISP

 Is anyone actually buying right now?  I haven't heard much about the big
 buyer (Jab) lately.

 On 3/19/2014 9:49 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:



 The going rate, we've seen (and has been discussed here many times), is
 

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Faisal,
 A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and
 Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough
 for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations.
 With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again,
 the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36
 procs to handle the load of other processes.


It seems there is a dual-core processor per port, so if that ports gets hit
by a DDoS, it will go down without help of any of other ports cores...

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

Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Ian Framson i...@tradeshowinternet.comwrote:

 Hi Wisps,

 We are looking for a pair of radios that can do 200 Mbps FDX over 11 miles
 (real world, not manufacturer's theoretical marketing promises). We are
 looking at using an unlicensed link (most likely 5 GHz) due to the time
 constraints, although we're open to suggestions.

 The make/model we were considering was Motorola PTP650 with 450 Mbps
 upgrade license.  We are not wed to Motorola, however. The cost seems to be
 the limiting factor at this point.

 Another WISP I spoke with mentioned Bridgewave TD60 might be 1 possibility.

 Your thoughts?



UBNT AirFiber 5/5U in 5.8 GHz will be an option when it becomes available.
AirFiber 24 GHz is said to provide a full-duplex capacity of 250 Mbps @
12.5 miles(http://www.ubnt.com/airlink/), but that gives very little room
for fade margin, if any. If you can't wait for AF5, you could buy AF24 now,
and then replace those with AF5s later in the year.


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

Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

[Rubens Kuhl]

As specified in http://www.axxcelera.com/product_item_detail.php?id=3050:


   - Capacity Options Ethernet*:* Up to 100Mbps full duplex plus 2 E1/T1
   wayside

200 Mbps aggregate == 200 Mbps Half-Duplex, while the original poster
stated a 200 Mbps Full-Duplex requirement.


Rubens



On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Freylekhman, Alex 
afreylekh...@axxcelera.com wrote:

  Ruben,
 We have a product called AB Full Access II . One of the very few FD-FDD
 radios left on the market. It s available in 5GHz band with high power
 transmitter which will help you to save antenna size.

 You can get 200mbps quite easy with that as Ethernet, TDM or fiber. I
 believe it will do the job for you

 Thanks
 Alex



  Aleksander Freylekhman
 Sales Director, North America
 Axxcelera Broadband Wireless
 a Moseley Company
   P: (804) 864-4125
   M: (440) 220-2192
 afreylekh...@axxcelera.com
 www.axxcelera.com
 On Jan 7, 2014 8:46 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Ian Framson 
 i...@tradeshowinternet.comwrote:

 Hi Wisps,

 We are looking for a pair of radios that can do 200 Mbps FDX over 11
 miles (real world, not manufacturer's theoretical marketing promises). We
 are looking at using an unlicensed link (most likely 5 GHz) due to the time
 constraints, although we're open to suggestions.

 The make/model we were considering was Motorola PTP650 with 450 Mbps
 upgrade license.  We are not wed to Motorola, however. The cost seems to be
 the limiting factor at this point.

 Another WISP I spoke with mentioned Bridgewave TD60 might be 1
 possibility.

 Your thoughts?



  UBNT AirFiber 5/5U in 5.8 GHz will be an option when it becomes
 available. AirFiber 24 GHz is said to provide a full-duplex capacity of 250
 Mbps @ 12.5 miles(http://www.ubnt.com/airlink/), but that gives very
 little room for fade margin, if any. If you can't wait for AF5, you could
 buy AF24 now, and then replace those with AF5s later in the year.


  Rubens



 ___
 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] Ubiquiti Rocket Titanium

[Rubens Kuhl]

Gigabit Ethernet requires all 4 pairs, so passive PoE wasn't an option.
If using active PoE, going with 802.3af makes more sense, and its 48v by
standard.

I don't think UBNT was trying any lock-in with this move. It was this way
or having separate admin / data interfaces, with the admin being 100 Mbps
with passive PoE and the data port Gigabit with no PoE.

Rubens



On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Paolo Di Francesco 
paolo.difrance...@level7.it wrote:

 Hi Josh

 I did not notice the voltage change, but it looks like more a business
 strategy (their switch does 24V and 48V) to lockout other vendors than a
 real technical need

 Should I reimplement again a new battery system at 48V for the site?
 Hum

 Thank you


  Ya...better.  Different voltage though.
 
  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937-552-2340
  Direct: 937-552-2343
  1100 Wayne St
  Suite 1337
  Troy, OH 45373
 
  On Apr 6, 2013 11:04 AM, Paolo Di Francesco
  paolo.difrance...@level7.it mailto:paolo.difrance...@level7.it
 wrote:
 
  Hi all
 
  I was wondering if the Rockets-Titanium are stable, or if somebody is
  using them with success.
  Not sure if they perform better than the plastic ubiquiti
 
  Still missing the multiple SSID and IPv6 support, who knows if
 Ubiquiti
  will implement that sooner or later...
 
  Let me know your feedback and if the extra cost worths the
  improvements :)
 
  Thank you
 
  --
 
 
  Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
 
  Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
 
  Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
 
  C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
  Fax : +39-091-8772072 tel:%2B39-091-8772072
  assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 tel:%28%2B39%29%20091-8776432
  web: http://www.level7.it
 
 
 
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 


 --


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

 Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

 C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
 Fax : +39-091-8772072
 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
 web: http://www.level7.it



 ___
 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] [Ubnt_users] ERL-3

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote:
 http://www.ubnt.com/stock

 You probably won't find anyone with any in stock at the moment, though.

If Ben Moore wants to send 1 or 2 to me while I'm at USA, UBNT end up
getting free publicity in an emerging market...

(blink blink)


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

[WISPA] ERL-3

[Rubens Kuhl]

Folks,

I've thought I saw once an URL UBNT find who has stock, but couldn't
find searching my archives. Is there such thing ?

I was trying to buy 1 or 2 EdgeRouter 3-port but so far couldn't find
anywhere. In the forums I saw people saying they had it backordered,
others saying they received their units fine... so I'm puzzled what's
the actual availability of the product.


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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote:
 I believe the source project has no or minimal MPLS support.

 Lack of MPLS is a deal killer for me, but I suspect they'll get it in there.

There are some reasons to use Router OS MPLS

1) Main reason is VPLS, either for private network customers or PPPoE
aggregation.
2) Then comes accelerated packet processing, which MT will now do for
IP packets with the FastPath feature
3) The comes look, my network runs MPLS, the protocol of the big carriers

What Ubiquiti could do, fast, is to provide both PWE3 and GRE
capabilities, layer 2 and layer 3 tunneling. There is no need of MPLS
to provide such services in a scenario the routers have good packets
per second capabilities, like the Ubiquiti routers do.

The MPLS capabilities of high-end routers linked to QoS and fast
recovery are not there in Router OS, and I don't see Ubiquiti going
after the service provider market Juniper leads and Cisco is a close
follower. If UBNT wants to kick Mikrotik, tunneling and aggregation
features (DHCP, RADIUS auth, Hotspot, PPPoE) are the ones to have.
MPLS or not MPLS is not the point.


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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Rubens Kuhl]

 With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you 
 lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and 
 you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to 
 be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the RouterOS features, it is 
 bridged and only applies to the switch group as a whole.

 Some of this lies with the poor choice in chipsets, while some lies in the 
 poor implementation.

It's a trade off. The switching chips were designed for home gateways,
and that's why they cost X (both volume and price issues), Mikrotik
did a good job of getting that functionality available to do wire-rate
filtering with sub-$100 devices.

What was a good decision for RB4xx/7xx/8xx series might not be the
case for RB1xxx series, which have more ports and usage requirements.


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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens
arthur.steph...@ptera.net wrote:
 We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to
 the customers router.
 He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
 Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears customers would
 be double natted when they hook up their routers?
 Or does it not matter from the customer experience?

It matters. NAT 44 or NAT 444 or NAT  are detrimental to
applications that are not just browsing the web, as the user usually
loses UPnP features that a single NAT can provide.

What I liked doing was having the benefits of both by filtering at L2
to only packets going to gateway and to required broadcast addresses
All other junk was filtered by the Ubiquiti radio. No double nat, no
routing. Best of both worlds.


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

Re: [WISPA] 2.5 Ghz Equipment Experiences

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Looking for some feedback on Base Station Equipment experience for 2.5 ghz.
 Either Wimax or other technology used.  Offlist or onlist …

Navini gear had an incredibly good indoor reach, either CDMA or WiMAX.
Too bad that Cisco bought them and then shut the product line down.

Today, I would look at PureWave http://www.pwnets.com/ (being aware
the WiMAX CPEs won't be there to buy in the long run) and TD-LTE
solutions (may cost more now, but will live longer). I've exited the
FWA business before I could test those so can't provide feedback.


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

Re: [WISPA] 2.5 Ghz Equipment Experiences

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 We looked at PW, requested some info via their webpage... no response...

 We are inclined to to TD-LTE...  but apparently all td-lte products is 
 vaporware still. Only a small group producing gear, usually the big guys like 
 Samsung, Ericsson,NSN ect...

In Asia people are actually using TD-LTE, but 2.3 is more usual than
2.5 GHz. A deployment I know of is using NSN @ 2.5 GHz.


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

Re: [WISPA] Wireless Network Software

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Carl Shivers cshiv...@aristotle.net wrote:
 What’s a good wireless diagram software?

I saw very good diagrams made with Gliffy, an online tool, but the
free version requires your diagrams to be public.

Still on the online front, http://www.diagram.ly/ looks interesting as
it's not the free version of an online service but a showcase for a
programming library, so it's less likely they lock you in.


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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT AirFiber Radio Pics

[Rubens Kuhl]

From a marketing standpoint, it's probably the other way around. Given
an EVA(profit adjusted for capital costs) target for the product, what
benefits needs to be packed so the perceived value matches pricing ?

In other words, they might know pretty well you would settle for less
bandwidth. But that would lower the price you think is reasonable for
such a product below a threshold they don't want. The solution is to
give you more than you need, let you choose whether you want to
increase your payback and squeeze your margins.

But they might be thinking to your advantage when they predict you can
use a new offer with more bandwidth to get more business, allowing you
to expend more with UBNT and still get more profit than before.

Either way it's naive to think they haven't factored marketing into
the product. While it's possible UBNT used a simple make it faster
and cheaper motto in designing this product, it's more likely this
decisions have been given a lot of thought.


Rubens


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Olufemi Adalemo adal...@gmail.com wrote:
 My thoughts exactly Tom,
 I just kept thinking just how nice this would be if there was a version with
 a smaller antenna, 1/5th of the spectrum and 50Mbps guaranteed duplex
 throughput. The characteristics of this radio limit its use to either
 backhaul or linking nearby office locations. The price on the other hand is
 approaching last mile access territory, what we really need is a 24GHz radio
 with half the antenna size and 1/5th the capacity for half the price.

 I can't help feeling that this radio was developed purely from the
 technology point of view without a lot of marketing input, make it faster
 and cheaper but really what a lot of ISPs need is make it more reliable
 and cheaper. The competition at the high end for many ISPs is 100Mbps PON,
 at the low end it's plain old DSL, many of us just need a solution to
 deliver several high quality links from a single location to clients 1-4
 miles away without wiping ourselves out with self interference. The
 integrated GPS sync certainly helps but do we need all that capacity for the
 majority of our links?

 This is certainly a game changer but UBNT are you listening?

 - - -
 Olufemi Adalemo



 On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net
 wrote:

 Any way you look at it, the UBNT 24Ghz product is a game changer. Its
 bringing a price point, that will mass excellerate the adoption of 24Ghz
 use.
 At that price, there are 1000s of uses.  Its very exciting. Its also a big
 bonus that it is MIMO, which should give it a good link budget, compared
 to
 the methods other technologies use to accommodate dual pol.

 What I dont like about it is that it uses to much spectrum and is to fast,
 which will cause parties to deploy faster speeds than they need, simply
 because they can, and cause more interference in urban areas, and reduce
 the
 number of links in an area. Often people incorrectly think that millimeter
 is like inteference free. What they forget is the low range is based on
 Rain
 fade, but when its not raining the signal goes very far, and reflections
 can
 reflect all over the place, even though narrow beamwidth.

 But there will still be a strong market for other products like SAF.  For
 example, windloading and mounting.  I jsut bought a SAF radio for that
 reason, where the 1ft dish option was preferred.
 SAF also has 256QAM support, quite a bit more efficient than UBNT's 64QAM
 limit, allowing high speed in smaller channels, allowing more radios to be
 colocated at a single site.

 I think UBNT's marketing is their typical overstated marketing.. Just like
 AIRMAX 5.8 where they promote as 300mb, when in reallity Dual Pol 20Mhz
 channels, the common size that can be used, yields more like between 40mb
 and 80mb depending on link budget and noise floor.  So in doing apples to
 apples comparisons, its important to take that into consideration. For
 example, a 13mile link just isn't going to happen in my rain zone, but
 might
 be doable in the desert.  With 2ft dishes, I dare not go over 2-1/4 miles,
 and still prefer under 1.5m.

 I believe the UBNT 24 product will also put a hurting on the 60Ghz market.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 ___
 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] transparent caching solution w/TPROXY

[Rubens Kuhl]

 We have a site that costs @ $3800/month for (shared) 3Mbps/512Kbps
 (Satellite), so we have been caching with Mikrotik proxy since the
 beginning (1998). I found a caching system that works well and caches
 videos and other types of traffic. If anyone is in the same situation
 you may want to check out Thundercache. It's a little tough because the
 sites using it are mostly in Spanish. I have 400GB of cache on it (3
 drives). Now the users will be able to be cached and retain their public
 IP.

You probably mean Portuguese, not Spanish. Thundercache is a popular
but somewhat controversial cache here in Brazil due to GPL code
misappropriation. You might want to look at
InComum(http://sourceforge.net/projects/incomum/) for a free resource
or CacheMara from MaraSystems(http://www.marasystems.com/) for a
commercial product that gives back to the GPL codebase.


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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

[Rubens Kuhl]

 What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is getting on a PtP ubnt
 connection?  We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 mi, CCQ 97-98%, 40mhz channel
 width, airmax off.



 Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270.  Real TCP throughput via iperf radio to
 radio is 40-45mbps.

Are you testing with single-stream Iperf ou multiple-stream ? You need
multiple streams to stress such a link.
I would use Airmax off, fixed ACK for 2 mi just as you did.

Check also for duplex mismatches at one end or another. With large
packets I would expect to almost fill-up the Fast Ethernet, like twice
the performance you've got.


Rubens



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] Rocket M5 Dish high latency

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
pni...@cnetworksolutions.com wrote:
 Tried again and this time airmax off seems to have done the trick.  Is there 
 any suggested settings in Advanced tab for a 2km link?

Turning auto-ACK off and setting it to 3km is probably a good thing.

Getting different results with the same configuration suggests
interference from something outside of your control...


Rubens



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] Rocket M5 Dish high latency

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
pni...@cnetworksolutions.com wrote:
 Ok, so WDS fixed the latency.  At 20mhz channel and 100%ccq what should our
 actual throughput be. We are only seeing 20mbps max.

Airmax should be used on P2P only for high-distance (~50km or more)
links. Keep WDS on but turn Airmax off.

Throughput depends on distance, but for a 5km link with 20 MHz channel
you should get 50 Mbps using large packets.


Rubens



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] Rocket M5 Dish high latency

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
pni...@cnetworksolutions.com wrote:
 I tried airmax off but the link is almost unusable. Is there any advanced 
 settings I need to change?

The other scenario where Airmax makes better goodput is interference,
either from your tower or from others. Shielding the Rocket might do
the trick, then.


Rubens



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] UBNT files $200M IPO

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Forums are less than optimal for support from manufacturers.  Always
 go for e-mail and call if they don't respond in a timely fashion.

My experience for Cisco, Juniper or UBNT gear is somewhat different.
I've got better support from users, including mailing lists and web
forums, than from the manufacturers.




Rubens



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] Remote generator monitoring?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Troy Settle tset...@thewiredroad.net wrote:
 How does one typically monitor remote locations to know when/if they’re
 running on generator?  I’d like to know when a generator exorcises and when
 it’s running due to a power outage.



 The easiest solution I can think of, is to stick an old routerboard at the
 site to run from the generator only, then monitor it to know when we’re on
 genny power.  This seems a little klunky though.

Old radios with fried RF are also good at knowing that utility power
is down. Same idea as an old routerboard, but running a WISP will get
you some of those radios for sure.


Rubens



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] Wimax 2.5 4.9 Ghz?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Working on a RUS funded RFP, need a 802.16e 2.5  4.9 system, who are the
 current players?

Redline Communications has a few new series named RDL-, and some
of them support 4.9. 2.5 is a band they long ago decided not to
support.


Rubens



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] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rubens,

        Thanks for the reply!

        I'm using a 5GHz AirMax back haul (PtMP) to two 2.4GHz APs (All UBNT 
 gear). The 5GHz back haul has never broken a sweat. Our upstream is a 
 1M/256K high latency connection so there just isn't that much data to move.

Satellite, huh ? You will probably gain a lot by forcing users to a
transparent proxy. You can do lots of TCP tuning on a server that
would be either impossible on some Microsoft TCP/IP stacks or too
expensive in support hours to do on the end users machines. Caching
also comes to mind.

        You got me thinking about the ack packets. Besides possibly a queue 
 type, what do you think about prioritizing them high?

High priority for ACK packets usually turns into better performance
perception on any network. I would try it for sure, but consider the
proxy option above for your specific scenario (not the usual WISP
one).


Rubens



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] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 One of the best examples is the impact of half duplex radios, or adaptive
 speed (modulation) radios, on bandwdith management systems that treat

Ideally, adaptive modulation radios should have QoS policies built-in.
That is true for Ceragon IP-MAX^2 radios that are aware to EXP MPLS
markings, but besides that expection, I don't know radios that do it.

 for us, for 10 years. But as our network became more congested, half duplex
 did show to be  a challenge for traffic management. It came to a point where
 Full Duplex licensed links was the only answer, and helped the most. And
 then our traffic management became more reliable as a result. My point is,
 its not only the method of traffic management that matters, but also the
 characteristics of the network.
 Queuing and QOS will always help make the best of one's network, but it wont
 fully make up for deficiencies in a physical network.

For a growing-up network, I think two half-duplex could be used for
better performance. For instance, two OSPF links with unequal inverted
costs, so each one will normally have unidiretional traffic, fall-back
to bidirectional if one of the links fail.


Rubens



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] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 I was running Butch's script with PCQ queues but I started wondering about 
 buffer bloat (yeah, I follow NANOG too) on the router. I thought about 
 trying RED on the outbound queue since if packets are dropped and resent on 
 our wireless network it's no biggie. Our wireless network is way overkill as 
 far as our bandwidth needs. But I didn't want dropped packets on our inbound 
 side because I didn't want to waste any of our precious satellite bandwidth. 
 So I kept PCQ queues there.

Before jumping into the conclusion that your network is overkill for
your usage, you should first graph it in RX+TX pps if it's Wi-Fi, or
RX pps and TX pps otherwise. Ideally you should also graph airtime %
as well, but that's not a MIB-II standard item... AirControl might do
it with UBNT gear.

 It seems like it made things work better but I never know for sure because 
 our satellite bandwidth is oversold and what we get at any given moment is 
 effected by what the other users who are on this same bandwidth are doing.

 Does anyone else mix queue types like that? Is this a dumb idea?

I think it's not dumb, but the cause/effect relations on TCP make
choosing which queue type to use in each direction a more complex
decision than that. Trying more combinations might be good.

One thing I would consider doing is using different queue types on
each direction depending on packet size. TCP packets going outbound
but have low size are just ACKs of incoming TCP data, and the other
way around. non-TCP packets would also have a different QoS strategy
as it's usually non-responsive to packet loss or delay variations.


Rubens



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] Colo DNS

[Rubens Kuhl]

 I’m looking for options for DNS redundancy.  In a nutshell, we have two
 datacenters in two different cities.  We need to have some redundancy for
 our publicly accessible servers.  We do NOT want to do round-robin DNS,  and
 auto-failover options are either not available or too costly at this time –
 we will make manual DNS changes as needed if our primary datacenter goes
 down.  I’m looking for some place that I can offers either a virtual server,
 or that will do DNS hosting that is located in a highly redundant facility.
 Prefer something on clustered servers in a colo center, NOT in the Dallas
 metroplex.   We want something totally independent of our two current data
 centers.

http://aws.amazon.com/route53/, perhaps ?


Rubens



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] non-802.3 rackmount poe switch

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jason Bailey j284...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Anyone have a good vendor for a rackmount poe switch for ubnt gear?Getting 
 kinda messy with all the zip-ties and double-sided tape ;)  Thanks!  Jason

Not UBNT, but RADWIN has a product called BDU (Base Distribution Unit)
for up to 8 radios. Fully SNMP managed... unfortunately it's 48V (can
be passive or 802.3af). But you can show them to UBTN's Ben Moore and
say that's what you want...



Rubens



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] Netgear GS108T VLANs

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Had to swap out a switch in a hurry and this was the best option at Fry's
 Managed switch
 Gigabit
 No Fan
 POE on port 1
 Managed

 This thing is not passing anything other than native VLAN1.
 Anyone using Netgear switches than can explain the terminology? Netgear tech
 support is less than clueless. From some of the forums there is some hint
 that I need to configure the ports and possibly make the uplink a Trunk but
 the documentation is very ambiguous. Doesn’t really seem right to me though,
 it should just pass VLAN traffic like everything else.

The GS-108T have two VLAN modes, which one are you trying to use, the
one based on tags or the port-based one ?
What are you trying to accomplish at the end of day, regarding
forwarding arbitrary or specific tags, restricting the connection
between ports or the uplink ?


Rubens



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] MikroTik as Load Balancer?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Optimum Wireless Services
wil...@optimumwireless.com wrote:
 Hello.

 I was thinking of using MikroTik rb450g to balance four 5mbps/1mbps dsl
 lines to replace TP-Link TL-R480+ which locks up from time to time.

 Just wanted to know how many of you use MT routerOS for load balancing
 and how is working out for you.

You could use RB-750 which is much cheaper than RB-450G to balance
that little traffic, or RB-750G if you want to have room for growth.
It works just fine... nth+conn-mark rules can provide very good
per-connection load-balancing, and the quirks of some sites/networks
that require to use fail-over instead of load-balancing are also
doable.

I really prefer building blocks instead of final products to do
loadbalancing stuff, as there will always be another thing that
doesn't mix up with it and you can always make it work.

For two uplinks, it would look like this:

0   chain=prerouting action=mark-routing new-routing-mark=RotaGrupoA
passthrough=no in-interface=LAN
connection-mark=ConexaoGrupoA

 1   chain=prerouting action=mark-routing new-routing-mark=RotaGrupoB
passthrough=no in-interface=LAN
connection-mark=ConexaoGrupoB

 2   chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=ConexaoGrupoA
passthrough=yes in-interface=LAN nth=2,1

 3   chain=prerouting action=mark-routing new-routing-mark=RotaGrupoA
passthrough=no in-interface=LAN
connection-mark=ConexaoGrupoA

 4   chain=prerouting action=mark-connection new-connection-mark=ConexaoGrupoB
passthrough=yes in-interface=LAN

 5   chain=prerouting action=mark-routing new-routing-mark=RotaGrupoB
passthrough=no in-interface=LAN

(and then two default routes, each one tiead to one of the routing marks)

Four uplinks require more chains with nth=4,1 then nth=3,1, then
nth=2,1 and then the last uplink. You will also need the no
load-balance rules prior to this rule group doing some form of
fail-over.


Rubens



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] MikroTik as Load Balancer?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 I was playing around with a spare rb433 doing something similar to what
 you just posted (nth+conn-mark rules) but, things were not working
 properly. I noticed my connections were really really slow, I don't know
 if I did something wrong.

It's very easy to do something wrong in such kind of setup. Look first
to counters using Winbox while generating traffic (both connected and
new connections); if that doesn't show what's wrong, packet captures
are the next resource.

 One other thing, how about fail over? If one line goes out would the
 other 3 work and that other line would be ignored until is back up? How
 can that be done?

A route on RouterOS have a check_gateway attribute, and usually arp or
ping dies when the line dies. You can go further than that by using
scripts like the ones in
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/ECMP_Failover_Script in order to kill a
line when something dies beyond the last-mile hop.

/ ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-A scope=255
target-scope=10 routing-mark=Route-Mark-A comment= disabled=no
 check_gateway=ping
/ ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-B scope=255
target-scope=10 routing-mark=Route-Mark-B comment= disabled=no
 check_gateway=ping
/ ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-A scope=255
target-scope=10 comment= disabled=no
 check_gateway=ping distance=2
/ ip route add dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=Uplink-B scope=255
target-scope=10 comment= disabled=no
 check_gateway=ping distance=2

Note that when Uplink-A dies, the traffic with Route-Mark-A will match
the last route to Uplink-B because the two routes to Uplink-A will be
disabled by check_gateway (and be brought back when it comes up).


Rubens





 I would also love to prioritize traffic, SYN ACK flags and DNS be on the
 highest priority, etc...

 I know is too much but, would like to do something like that, I don't
 know if all these are doable at the same time.

You first need to move the queues back to Mikrotik, as it usually sees
your ADSL/Cable line as 100 Mbps that won't ever be congested. Shaping
the outbound interfaces to actual ADSL uplink is the starting point,
and it's doable at the same time. The complexity of the ruleset will
increase, so I recommend doing all the load-balancing + fail-over
stuff, and then moving to QoS.



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] Google ISP edition

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote:
 I know the ISP edition isn't available any more. What version or where is the 
 place to go to get the replacement. I'm looking to use it for a couple 
 customers.

http://domains.live.com


Rubens



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] Google ISP edition

[Rubens Kuhl]

Microsoft Domains Live is currently free for the services and/or
number of accounts demanded by small and medium ISPs. Google used to
be free for ISPs with thousand of accounts, but that doesn't hold
anymore... now it's time for freebies from Microsoft.


Rubens


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Shaun Hoggan s...@ikano.com wrote:
 Rubens,
 IKANO can offer the ISP edition of Gmail.

 You can learn about it here:
 http://partneredition.ikano.com/

 If I can answer any of your questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 Thanks,
 Shaun Hoggan
 s...@ikano.com
 801-415-8113



 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
 Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:37 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google ISP edition

 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote:
 I know the ISP edition isn't available any more. What version or where is 
 the place to go to get the replacement. I'm looking to use it for a couple 
 customers.

 http://domains.live.com


 Rubens


 
 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] Google ISP edition

[Rubens Kuhl]

It was free for 100 accounts, but was expanded to 500 accounts on the
free version, and one can ask for more accounts without changing for a
paid service. They might turn your down or not, no way to know
beforehand.



Rubens


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:
 I thought it wasn't free from MS for ISPs.
 Regards,

 Chuck


 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

 Microsoft Domains Live is currently free for the services and/or
 number of accounts demanded by small and medium ISPs. Google used to
 be free for ISPs with thousand of accounts, but that doesn't hold
 anymore... now it's time for freebies from Microsoft.


 Rubens


 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Shaun Hoggan s...@ikano.com wrote:
  Rubens,
  IKANO can offer the ISP edition of Gmail.
 
  You can learn about it here:
  http://partneredition.ikano.com/
 
  If I can answer any of your questions, please do not hesitate to contact
  me.
 
  Thanks,
  Shaun Hoggan
  s...@ikano.com
  801-415-8113
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
  Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
  Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:37 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google ISP edition
 
  On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote:
  I know the ISP edition isn't available any more. What version or where
  is the place to go to get the replacement. I'm looking to use it for a
  couple customers.
 
  http://domains.live.com
 
 
  Rubens
 
 
 
  
  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/




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] Google ISP edition

[Rubens Kuhl]

That's why I mentioned that Microsoft Live Domains are like that, not
Google Apps. Microsoft is mimicking what Google has done prior to
2008, and that's why I suggest using Microsoft instead of Google. As
Google once taught to Microsoft, free (as in free beer) is an
unbeatable price.

If an ISP is willing to pay, I would strongly suggest Hosted Zimbra
services. Get a quote from Google Apps as well, but Zimbra offers way
more upselling oportunities to offset the baseline cost.


Rubens


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Shaun Hoggan s...@ikano.com wrote:
 Rubens,
 Google apps Partner Edition, now Google Apps for ISPs, was free prior to 2008 
 but unless you registered your domain with Google prior to 2008 it is now a 
 paid product.

 You should also be aware that Google no longer offers this service direct and 
 they are utilizing the wholesale channel to distribute Google Apps for ISPs.

 You can find out more information about the program at:
 http://partneredition.ikano.com/


 Thanks,
 Shaun Hoggan
 s...@ikano.com
 801-415-8113





 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
 Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:51 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google ISP edition

 It was free for 100 accounts, but was expanded to 500 accounts on the free 
 version, and one can ask for more accounts without changing for a paid 
 service. They might turn your down or not, no way to know beforehand.



 Rubens


 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:
 I thought it wasn't free from MS for ISPs.
 Regards,

 Chuck


 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

 Microsoft Domains Live is currently free for the services and/or
 number of accounts demanded by small and medium ISPs. Google used to
 be free for ISPs with thousand of accounts, but that doesn't hold
 anymore... now it's time for freebies from Microsoft.


 Rubens


 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Shaun Hoggan s...@ikano.com wrote:
  Rubens,
  IKANO can offer the ISP edition of Gmail.
 
  You can learn about it here:
  http://partneredition.ikano.com/
 
  If I can answer any of your questions, please do not hesitate to
  contact me.
 
  Thanks,
  Shaun Hoggan
  s...@ikano.com
  801-415-8113
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
  Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:37 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google ISP edition
 
  On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote:
  I know the ISP edition isn't available any more. What version or
  where is the place to go to get the replacement. I'm looking to
  use it for a couple customers.
 
  http://domains.live.com
 
 
  Rubens
 
 
 
  ---
  -
  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/



 
 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

Re: [WISPA] Nera 11ghz Licensed

[Rubens Kuhl]

If you can do 56 MHz channels at 11 GHz in your country, an initial
setup with Ceragon with dual-polarity antenna will give you 400 Mbps
and be upgradable to 800 Mbps.

Mine doesn't allow it, so one needs to go to 18 GHz to have 400 Mbps
per carrier.

Rubens


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have looked at Dragonwave but I was having problems getting 5 nines on the
 longer links even using 6 foot dishes. I was hoping that Nera with higher
 transmit power might get me over the hump. Initially I do not need GigE but
 I likely need the option to upgrade to near GigE with near zero downtime
 sometime down the road.

 On Feb 5, 2011 2:54 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ceragon has High Power ODUs and a very good xpic (dual polarity
 antennas on the same frequency) support, both good things for the
 original poster... but on GigE isn't Dragonwave Quantum a bit better
 than Nera/Ceragon ?


 Rubens


 On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Bob Moldashel lakel...@gbcx.net wrote:
 Nera was just purchased...


 
 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] Nera 11ghz Licensed

[Rubens Kuhl]

Ceragon has High Power ODUs and a very good xpic (dual polarity
antennas on the same frequency) support, both good things for the
original poster... but on GigE isn't Dragonwave Quantum a bit better
than Nera/Ceragon ?


Rubens


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Bob Moldashel lakel...@gbcx.net wrote:
 Nera was just purchased by Ceragon.  That may be a good thing or a bad thing

 Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless

 -Original message-

 From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sat, Feb 5, 2011 18:37:16 GMT+00:00
 Subject: [WISPA] Nera 11ghz Licensed

 Anyone using Nera gear out there? I hear it has a bit more transmit
 power for longer links. My concern is out growing its capacity. Can
 multiple channels be added to a single dish to increase throughput?
 How does that work? Looking at picking up a GigE at a datacenter many
 miles away and its going to take me quite a few hops to get it back.



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] You would think after 20 years we have this down.

[Rubens Kuhl]

 We recently upgraded a link and started having some packet loss.  Looking at
 the manged switch, it was obvious the CMM on that tower was getting ethernet
 errors.  Auto negotiation on GigE switches is flaky as hell.  This is the
 second time in a month I've had to hard code both ends.  This has occurred
 on both Cisco and HP Procurve hardware.

GigE auto-neg not working is a hint pointing to bad cable,
interference and/or defective hardware. Unlike Fast-Eth, Gig-E autoneg
works and you lose link quality monitoring by disabling it.



Rubens



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] Advice on PTP link over water?

[Rubens Kuhl]

If you have 100% Fresnel Zone 1 clearance, instead of 60% FZ1 which is
the usual parameter over land, you are probably good to go.

As these sites are more prone to rust, I would strongly prefer
integrated units instead of dish antennas; Ubiquiti Powerbridge M
comes to mind, both because not having RF cables and connectors to
rust and being dual-polarity.


If you want diversity, consider adding a 900 MHz backup-link to the
5.8 GHz main-link. Stay away from 2.4 GHz, it would only contribute to
global warming... :-)
(Rocket M 900 with two Yagis, may be ?)


Rubens


On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Tom Sharples tsharp...@qorvus.com wrote:
 Hi, we need to install an aprox. 8 mile PTP 5.8Ghz link near the Big Island
 in Hawaii. One end will be at about 50ft MSL, while the other end is at
 about 3500ft. The first 4 miles are over water, with rest over moderately
 hilly terrain to a freestanding 50ft tower. The ends have LOS. Ordinarly I'd
 just use a conventional setup with a pair of 2' dish antennas and XR5
 radios, but am considering using dual-polarity feedhorns (or even separate
 dishes) and diversity or dual radios due to the water.  Is this worth the
 effort, or should we just use e.g. horizontal polarity and stick to it?
 Since the one end is much higher than the other I'm thinking this should
 mitigate water effects, but would welcome any opinions.

 Thanks,

 Tom S.



 
 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] Licensed 11ghz Hops

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
 Any discussion on best way to combine the two links from the DATA FLOW
 perspective or TCIP/IP perspective?
 The average Mikrotik Loadbalancer may not handle that 800mbps link all that
 well.

 Are people using Switch level trunk aggregation, or layer3 aggregation
 methods? OR just running two seperate logical link, and putting different
 traffic on different routers/links?

 There can be issues with combining at LAyer2, because often two wireless
 links dont operate at exactly teh same speed due to slightly different link
 qualities (packetloss) or SNRs.

 I'm assuming most would want to use a session bases method that would
 dynamically assign a specific session to a single link, which would require
 a high layer load balancing option.

 We are familiar with most of the load balancing methods, jsut wondering what
 others are choosing for combining two licensed 300-400mb links, and which
 hardware (switch or router) they are using to accomplish it.

At first, used 2 Cisco 3750 doing etherchannel. They can
L2-loadbalance using L3 parameters (src-dst-ip pair) which worked fine
until MPLS was deployed, with a side effect of breaking the
loadbalancing effect. It started working again when replaced with
Cisco ME6524, which can L2-balance with L4 information and MPLS labels
to a smooth session-based balancing with up to 8 links. Even without
the MPLS license, which is the expensive part, my guess is that ME6524
can L2-balance with L4 information and could be an option to such a
job.

And after seeing Mikrotik RB450G load-balancing 200 Mbps with session
persistance without issues, I would consider an RB-1000 to
load-balance 2 links...

Rubens



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] Full BGP on RouterOS

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists
jeffl...@att.net wrote:
 Hi Rubens,

 We've found Quagga to be rock solid with the typical application which is
 under a dozen peers.

 We did add a patch to prevent the never-emptying work queue backlog problem
 when multiple peers flap at the same time. I'm sure this is the problem the
 IXP folks ran into.

The Euro-IX folks developed some patches (or maybe some major code
revision), you might want to take a look into that, but I guess you
probably knew that already...

 Quagga is a very mature, stable RIP/OSPF/BGP platform which, given
 multi-threading capabilities, will scale to hundreds of peers.

I saw some nasty bugs over the years with Quagga, and noticed the
enormous effort required to maintain the old codebase; enough to make
me always prefer something else. Every now and then a codebase seems
to be more trouble maintaning than scrapping it altogether on the
open-source world, and I'm pretty convinced that this time has come to
Quagga.

If you feel that codebase is worthwhile, I suggest investing a large
amount of Imagestream revenues on restructuring it. I'll be glad to
have Quagga as an option, again.


Rubens



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] [Bulk] Re: Full BGP on RouterOS

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote:
 Any Juniper fans / users  on this list ?

 I have a couple of questions about them.

M-series: Very good, but are aging very fast. Good to buy used, though.
MX-series: The new king of the hill. The first J's I would considerer
for most of the tasks.
T-series: Too expensive for the average xSP, look first at the bigger MX'es.
EX-series: Not that good, unfortunately. May improve in the future.
SRX-series: Good firewalls with some routing capabilities, but sales
guys will try to sell them as routers. Run away if you want routing.
J-series: Retired, but better than SRX at some fail-over scenarios.
SRX may improve in the future, as well.


Rubens



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] Full BGP on RouterOS

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
 Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and
 Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers.

Although it's a different scenario, the IXP folks beg to differ about
Quagga reliability. When the number of peers is high, it flops
miserably. Some of them moved to OpenBGPd, some of them to BIRD
(http://bird.network.cz). None of them moved to XORP, Mikrotik's
choice (and Vyatta's prior to switching to Quagga).

If one have time, he or she should test all of the above... with
limited time, I would favor testing BIRD first.


 I personally use Mandrake (Mandriva) Linux with a slew of custom
 modifications that we have made, loaded on SuperMicro, and then use latest
 Quagga.
 That has worked well for us, the last 5 years. (although, I dont recommend
 that to someone, until they are vastly familiar with their distro of Linux.
 Last thing you want to do is use your BGP router for a Guinee Pig Science
 project, rebooting it all the time to test script changes.) But once you are
 comfortable with your Distro, it works well.

And once you are comfortable with open-source border routing, you
might want to take it to the next level by using hardware-based
forwarding, with open-source software and gateware:
http://www.netfpga.org/


Rubens



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] Full BGP on RouterOS

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Although it's a different scenario, the IXP folks beg to differ about
 Quagga reliability. When the number of peers is high, it flops
 miserably. Some of them moved to OpenBGPd, some of them to BIRD
 (http://bird.network.cz). None of them moved to XORP, Mikrotik's
 choice (and Vyatta's prior to switching to Quagga).

 Pretty sure Mikrotik is using none of those and instead rolled there
 own in there newer router OS releases.

- Mikrotik ROS 2.9x was Quagga-based (you could do a telnet 127.0.0.1
2601, for instance) ;
- Mikrotik ROS 3.15 was XORP-based according to Mikrotik; they told
that to a customer that was facing issues with that version ;
- On the Mikrotik wiki you can find info that PIM-SM Multicast code is
from XORP, although they don't say on the wiki that BGP or OSPF were
XORP's ;
- The minutes long CPU-hog was a bug described at Vyatta forums while
they were using XORP, and suddenly the same bug appears on a multitude
of Mikrotik ROS versions.

The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.


Has been XORP part of ROS at same point ? Pretty sure it was.
Is still XORP-based on 4.x, 5.0rc ? I don't know. Educated guess: XORP
up to 4.something, something else on 4.later or 5.0rc.


Rubens



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] Full BGP on RouterOS

[Rubens Kuhl]

Although a P3 800 is not something we could call powerful these days,
what you've seen is connected to software, not hardware. Since
Mikrotik replaced Quagga with XORP in ROS 3.x, a good number of users
report minutes of high CPU in a full-routing environment. Does not
happen for everyone, but happens to most of them.


Rubens


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Does anyone have 1-2 full BGP routing tables on a MikroTik router?  If
 so, what kind of hardware are you running.  I'm testing a single feed on
 a P3 800.  It loads the routes fine, and seems to handle the routes in
 stride (all 328659 of them), until you start poking at the routing table
 like...

 /ip route print count-only where bgp-as-path=1234

 An AS that yielded 500 routes took 1-2 minutes at 100% CPU to complete.
 Is this normal these days, or is significantly greater hardware in
 order?  I used to have a full feed on a Cisco 3640.  It took 5-10
 minutes to load all of the routes after a reload, and it was almost
 impossible to log in, high packet loss, etc. during that time.

 So, should it take 10 seconds on real hardware, or is this type of query
 always slow?

 Thanks,

 --
 Kristian Hoffmann
 System Administrator
 kh...@fire2wire.com
 http://www.fire2wire.com

 Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE





 
 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] RB1100U Anywhere?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 I'd like to have at least 8 ports at every site so that I don't have to
 include a switch:

 2 for backhauls
 3 for APs
 1 for UPS
 1 for remote power control unit
 1 for laptop access when technician is there

 I just looked at the docs for the RB1100...

 It says thirteen individual gigabit ethernet ports, two 5-port switch
 groups, and includes ethernet bypass capability

Be careful to test UPS and remote power control with the Routerboard
you plan to buy. Gigabit ports and 10BASE-T Half-Duplex devices are
not good friends, and I had to put a switch just for a remote power
control unit once because of this. 10/100 devices perform ok, even if
you had to hard-wire the config to something that works.

 The two questions I have:

 1. The 5-port switch groups... Does this mean that the individual ports
 can't be routed independently of the other 4 ports in the switch group?

They can all be routed, bridged or hardware switched; you can route or
bridge all ports of all groups, but you can only hardware switch among
ports of the same group. Bridging and hardware switching differs only
in performance, so some planning is required like grouping low-rate
devices (UPS, remote power etc.) on the same group so that if you want
to do some high-speed trickery, it could be done.


 2. The ethernet bypass capability... What's the application for this?

Surviving the death of the RB-1100.

Rubens



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] Managed VLAN Switch

[Rubens Kuhl]

Netgear GS-108T. It doesn't have SFP ports, though.
Ceragon IP-10 radios have an internal switch, which is a nice thing
from a reliability standpoint.


Rubens




On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
 Looking for a manged VLAN switch with ~8 GigE ports.  Anyone know of
 anything?  Going to use them along a few hop licensed link.



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] chipset vs standard based beam forming?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 interference nulling, etc), but that seems to have limited
 effectiveness when it comes to receiving transmitted packets from the
 client end (resulting in slow uplink?).

Multi-antenna systems like the ones doing beamforming can provide MRC
(Maximal-Ratio Combining), which does improve the receive SNR. It's
not beamforming per se but having an antenna array with proper
wavelength fractions separation improves MRC performance.


 In some of these cases, the
 receive antennas are just an omni antenna. (802.11 is not a timing
 based protocol, so I don't see how beamforming benefits on the receive
 side will ever happen)

802.11 systems with TDMA-like protocols (AirMax, Nstreme v2) may change that.

 So is the best that we can hope for with beam forming is faster
 download but the same old upload?  How will the standard (once baked
 in more vendor gear) do things differently?

My personal experience with 802.16e 4- and 8-antenna systems is the
opposite of that, with upload coverage and quality (not speed) being
improved the most. Download speeds are better but cell capacity is
usually not an issue on the first years of a continuos coverage
system; cell radius impacts directly on upfront CAPEX.


Rubens



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] RIP vs other routing protocols

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Is RIP solid?  It's been around for decades, and I used it extensively in
 the beginning years when I was doing everything.  But it seems that we have
 many problems lately and RIP is being blamed for it.  It's a very easy
 protocol to administer  configure, not too complicated, so I can't imagine
 so many problems when things are properly configured.

It depends on how much testing Mikrotik is doing on RIP. I've had
bizarre problems with RIP on newer Cisco IOS releases, and it seems is
not testing RIP anymore... it's up to the poor soul still using RIP on
Cisco gear to catch these bugs.

You told us you replaced RIP for BGP; that's a good fast call, because
BGP is similar to RIP in many more ways than a link-state protocol
like OSPF. But in the long run, you should consider whether the link
is stable or not and move either to a link-sate protocol (Only OSPF is
available in Mikrotik these days, may be they implement IS-IS in the
future), or to a more unstable-suited protocol like MME.

At least for the topology part, i.e., how to get to that router. As
for the routes themselves, IBGP with a route-reflector running on top
of (OSPF + MME + RIP) is the way to scale the network up.


Rubens



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] RB-1100 strange issues

[Rubens Kuhl]

(sorry for the cross-posting)


One test scenario of a RB-1100 are showing some strange issues including
- Ports do not connect with forced speed/duplex, only with auto
- Iperf tests going thru it does OK with UDP but simply passes no TCP traffic

It looks pretty close to this post on MT forum:
http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3t=43212p=229098#p229098

ROS version is 4.11, with firmware updated to 2.27 via system
routerboard upgrade (but 2.26 had the same issues). Conntrack is off.


Any hints ?


Rubens



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] RB-1100 strange issues

[Rubens Kuhl]

Does mdix-enable works, or should work, on the RB-1100 ? Shouldn't
that option make ports without auto-negotiation work with straight
cable ?

As for the performance issues, it seems related to tagged traffic.
Still trying to diagnose this one.

Rubens


On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
 When you take the ethernet ports off auto are you using a crossover cable? I 
 learned that the hard way (well not too hard, when I posted that turning off 
 auto made the port on some UBNT gear go dead folks here educated me).

 Greg
 On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:

 (sorry for the cross-posting)


 One test scenario of a RB-1100 are showing some strange issues including
 - Ports do not connect with forced speed/duplex, only with auto
 - Iperf tests going thru it does OK with UDP but simply passes no TCP traffic

 It looks pretty close to this post on MT forum:
 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=3t=43212p=229098#p229098

 ROS version is 4.11, with firmware updated to 2.27 via system
 routerboard upgrade (but 2.26 had the same issues). Conntrack is off.


 Any hints ?


 Rubens


 
 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] PowerBridge 5M

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:
 I wanted to follow up on this.
 I swapped a 750 out for a RB/600 the other day, and now my packet loss
 problems have gone away.  Must be a problem with incompatibility to a
 MikroTik.

RB-600 has GigE interfaces, while RB-750 has FastE. Seems like a
negotiation issue, a strange one as Ubiquiti is also Fast-E. Or maybe
UBNT changed this ? The chipset they use on the M family is Gig-E
capable.


Rubens



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] 189 mile wifi link- 5.8G Ubiquiti

[Rubens Kuhl]

I've seen a few of those records, but I would like to see records of
long distance *stable* connections, let's say four nines.

Rubens


On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
 Pretty impressive for 5.8Ghz. I'm aware of numerous long 2.4G links, but
 this is clearly a record for 5.8G.

 http://www.gizmag.com/go/7878/

 It was even over water, all be it, it was also on top of a mountain a mile
 high :-)
 They said they pulled off 5 mbps.




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] I'm pulling Mikrotik

[Rubens Kuhl]

 MT isn't helping by being largely incompetent at change/quality control.
 Regressons appearing between releases on modules where there are no changes
 listed in the changelog etc.

Changelogs that don't reflect actual changes or secretive known bugs
are a bad industry habit. Cisco does that as well, and both Cisco and
MT bother me when they do this. By doing this Cisco allowed its
biggest competitor to grow, Juniper; MT counterpart seems to be
Ubiquiti.

(and for the record, Juniper now has the same bad habit, and Ubiquiti
seems to be developing it)

Rubens



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] OT: Looking for Layer 3 Switch with BGP?

[Rubens Kuhl]

An RB1000 with an external switch will handle more traffic than RB1100.


Rubens


On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Francois Menard fmen...@xittel.net wrote:
 Even RB1100 ?

 That would be my choice. 399$ for 13 GigE ports...

 F.

 On 2010-09-08, at 8:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

 Non of the sub $1000 appliances will cut the mustard at 300-500meg of
 traffic...  100meg no problem.

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom

 On 9/8/2010 8:44 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote:
 vyatta has a $799 routing appliance that will work -
 pfsense - on hardware will do it for free - (what an amazing price)

 :-)


 On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

 Welcome to the Mid-range of traffic handling...

 There is nothing on the market place that is affordable that will do
 what you are looking for.

 Best thing you can do is deploy two devices.. a Gig Switch, pick your
 favorite vendor... and a Core Router for BGP

 For Core Router in the Cisco world you are looking at something with a
 G1 or G2 engine ... (7206vxr or small 7301) range $5k to 10K on the used
 market place.

 In Juniper Land... M10i or an M20 (if you like redundancy...) cost on
 the secondary markets about $8 to $10k

 You could use a Mikrotik Power Router.. cost $ 2500 to $5000

 Only the Cisco 7301 and Mikrotik are small and consume little power...
 Everything else is big and consumes power.

 Most common, cost efficient network design would be to use GigE Switches
 in a ring or your favorite network topology, with one or two Routers
 located at DataCenters or NOC...


 If you find some other solution, that can do what you are looking for,
 please share it with us, cause we have been looking too... what I am
 sharing above with you is what we have found so far.

 Regards.

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom


 On 9/8/2010 7:16 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
 Needing full BGP routes takes you out of the realm of cheap Layer 3
 switches...
 You need to worry about TCAM (hardware route memory) in addition to
 RAM on Layer 3 switches and apart from decked out Cisco 6500s or
 greater you aren't going to find that.

 The Juniper MX80 should work. It is 2U and can have 48 GigE ports. You
 should be able to get it for $30-50K.

 Alternatively you could try a multihop BGP setup like Cogent has been
 known to do.
 Setup one BGP session between the customer and your Layer 3 switch at
 the tower. This carriers a route for your border router/route
 reflector to the customer and vice versa.
 Then setup a BGP session between the customer and your border
 router/route reflector.

 Or you could drag MPLS into it but 2 simple BGP sessions seems like
 the most straightforward solution to me.

 On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Matt
 Jenkinsm...@smarterbroadband.net mailto:m...@smarterbroadband.net
 wrote:
 I am trying to find a Layer 3 switch that has 24 or 48 1000 base-T ports
 with enough RAM to handle Full BGP Internet Routes. Anyone have any
 suggestions?

 For those who wonder why I am upgrading all of my backhauls to
 support ~300mbps. In addition I need to be able to offer BGP connections
 to customers from this ring of backhauls.

 - Matt


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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 mailto: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/

 _
 *Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com *
 Email: gl...@hostmedic.com mailto:gl...@hostmedic.com
 Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.





 
 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: 

Re: [WISPA] Recommendation on Redline's PtP line?

[Rubens Kuhl]

AN80-i-s are impressive radio units, but interference from other
unlicensed radios will take some of its throughput. AN80 will survive
where other radios won't, but it will cost you some performance.

Try getting one with the maximum bandwidth license, 108 Mbps, even if
you plan to use less. It is actually a channel+modulation license, and
you will prefer having all channels and modulations available so you
could use a higher modulation with a small channel or a lower
modulation with a larger channel.

Rubens


On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Rogelio scubac...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've got a project where I need some affordable PtP links with as
 little latency as possible, and a friend recommended Redline

 http://www.tessco.com/products/displayProducts.do?skus=344025%2C344476WT.mc_id=enewscontactID=13579320gwkey=SVRE3SHRV3

 http://www.tessco.com/products/displayProductInfo.do?sku=344476eventPage=1
 http://www.tessco.com/products/displayProductInfo.do?sku=344025eventPage=1

 They are TDD, and from what I hear, they are conservative in their
 throughput numbers but tend to outperform other vendors who inflate
 their numbers.

 Any input there?  The ones I listed there run about $1600 retail on
 TESSCO's site.


 
 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] OT: Looking for Layer 3 Switch with BGP?

[Rubens Kuhl]

If you have a ring, don't do layer 3. Use L2 switch that have some
form of rapid recovery that isn't spanning-tree based, and have 2
strong Layer 3 routers connected to it.

An usual combination is Extreme pizza boxes with EAPS ring-protection,
2 Juniper M7i routers with VRRP, but many others will work.


Rubens


On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Matt Jenkins m...@smarterbroadband.net wrote:
 I am trying to find a Layer 3 switch that has 24 or 48 1000 base-T ports
 with enough RAM to handle Full BGP Internet Routes. Anyone have any
 suggestions?

 For those who wonder why I am upgrading all of my backhauls to
 support ~300mbps. In addition I need to be able to offer BGP connections
 to customers from this ring of backhauls.

 - Matt


 
 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] OT: Looking for Layer 3 Switch with BGP?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Half duplex eth6 to eth7. Eth6 is master-port for eth7.
 Frame Size, PPS
 64, 148810

This is 100M, isn't it ? 1Gbps connection could provide more, I think.


Rubens



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] Mikrotik Multi Hop BGP w/Cogent

[Rubens Kuhl]

Larry,

Does the solution includes scope or target-scope ? Recursive route
resolution on Mikrotik is dependent on such parameters

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Using_scope_and_target-scope_attributes



Rubens


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Larry A Weidig lwei...@excel.net wrote:
        Just wanted to sent a HUGE THANKS out to Blake for his
 assistance with getting this up and running!  Just for reference if
 people run into this in the future it seems that Cogent requires you to
 setup two BGP connections to them, the first simply to advertise your
 prefixes which MUST include the loopback they assign you.  Once they get
 that they then know how to route to you and then you can get the
 remaining routes from the other session into your network.  There is a
 discussion of this on the Mikrotik forums at:

 http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=6t=5039start=0
        Hopefully this will help others in the future as Cogent really
 just offered the blanket we do not know Mikrotik response when I
 queried them for assistance.
        Again THANKS!  Can now start heading home (though some of my
 paths are flooded and roads closed from the storms we are having).

 * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
 * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
 * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
 * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Blake Covarrubias
 Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:26 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Multi Hop BGP w/Cogent

 Larry,

 Feel free to give me a call to discuss this issue.

 --
 Blake Covarrubias
 Systems and Network Manager
 Beamspeed, LLC
 928-343-0300 ext 214

 On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

 Butch Evans would probably be the best person for that.  Definitely
 the best person I know for Mikrotik and BGP.

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


 On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Larry A Weidig lwei...@excel.net
 wrote:
        We are attempting to add Cogent as another BGP peer for
 upstream
 connectivity.  No matter what we try we are unable to get the link to
 establish.  Wondering if anybody else with Cogent, BGP and Mikrotik
 would care to share an example of their config.  Sitting in NOC,
 waiting
 words of wisdom...  Thanks!

 * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)
 * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/
 * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area
 * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free





 
 
 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/




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] yet another WiMAX vs LTE article

[Rubens Kuhl]

It should be noted that LTE wouldn't be as good or early available
without mobile WiMAX.
Even if the final outcome is not the network nirvana, it's a lot
better than what was planned by the powerful forces.

Comparing technology only, I think 802.16e failed to achieve a good
PAPR (peak-to-average-power-ratio) on the uplink, something SC-FDMA
does very well and is crucial to mobile. I know WiMAX 2 allows SC-FDMA
on the uplink, but that may be little late.

The increased latency from 16d to 16e bugs me also, while each UMTS
release showed lower latency than the previous generations.

Rubens

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote:
 Depends on the bet you are making. WiMAX as a personal broadband
 mobility technology in name and ideal is not going to happen. That was
 made conclusive some time ago. There will be no device ecosystem, etc.
 However, LTE as a technology is very much WiMAX-like, even using many of
 the same components. So WiMAX as a TECHNOLOGY very much endurs.

 But the real and ultimate dream of future WiMAX was not about
 technology, but rather a mobile environment that was an open networks
 where consumers chose their devices, applications could be developed
 without negotiating with carriers, etc. -- sort of a network nirvana
 from a user standpoint. Problem is, the carriers don't want that and
 there is no new disruptive carrier to push the market in that direction
 (that dream died with the last 700 MHz auction). They make money off the
 applications on their networks, they select the devices on their
 networks (and the contracts you have to sign to use them).

 All that said, WiMAX as a fixed technology, with some light nomadicity,
 has a long life. It is an excellent technology for that need, delivering
 real QoS in multipoint wireless for the first time. Maybe that is all as
 it should be since WiMAX was first designed as a fixed technology. It
 was not the goal of WISPs or most operators for WiMAX vendors to try for
 the mobile path...it was the goal largely of Intel who was looking to
 create a multibillion dollar market it would control that would displace
 the legacy telecom vendors or force them to adopt the technology. So it
 was a case of technology makers trying to invent a market where the
 customer demand did not natively exist. And powerful forces were aligned
 against the effort from the start. So it was a longshot from the start
 and these two factors, in my view, ultimately doomed it as a mobile
 concept.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Rogelio
 Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:18 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] yet another WiMAX vs LTE article

 I'm still getting my feet wet with the whole 4G thing and found this
 interesting

 http://www.maravedis-bwa.com/Issues/5.29/Readmore3.html

 (Sorry if it's old news to many...)

 Almost everyone I know is betting (and betting big!) on LTE.  The only
 ones I know holding out on WiMAX 2 are niche markets in the federal
 space or ISPs in Africa.


 
 
 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] yet another WiMAX vs LTE article

[Rubens Kuhl]

 Since their beam forming is dynamic, I would expect it to work very well
 in that environment.

As Ruckus beamforming is based on selecting a receiver instead of
combining the signals, it should indeed deal with ducting but not too
well with multi-path.

 No Beam forming is expected from Ubiquity... just MIMO...

If Quantenna, Celeno or the other chip makers come up with a
cost-effective 802.11n beamforming solution, and they claim they will,
may be UBNT rethinks this issue.


Rubens



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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 OpenWRT and OLSR or BATMAN on a Routerboard or Ubiquiti CPU platform
 may be ideal, but I need to learn more about OLSR and BATMAN in
 practice.  BATMAN seems to be a distance-vector algorithm, like, uh,
 DECNET 3 and 4 and IGRP, while OLSR is link state, like OSPF.  I am
 partial to link state.  The BATMAN guys note that it doesn't scale
 well, especially 100 nodes, but I'm not looking to have that many in
 a domain.  Distance vectors are fast to learn new routes but have
 problems with dropped routes.

Although TRILL is being developed on networks with fiber-rich diets,
it might be good to a wireless mesh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRILL_%28computing%29

In essence, Layer 2 link-state that is good for meshes. The question
if link-state or distance-vector is more appropriate to a wireless
mesh is something yet to be defined, but you said you are partial to
link-state, so TRILL will probably thrill you.



Rubens



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] Maximum sector power?

[Rubens Kuhl]

 The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then

My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
say that an uplink(Customer -  WISP) that is made using directive
antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
to the downlink (WISP - Customer) .



Rubens



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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote:
 that's a few radio hops away from anywhere.  And that's one reason why 
 per-hop latency is all-critical

 To put things in context... from what we have seen typical latency between 
 radios (for a single link) are between 1ms to 2ms... The Moto Canopy are an 
 exception they have much higher latencybecause of what they do and how 
 they do it so even if you are going thru 20 radios.. you are talking 
 about 15-20 ms 


per-hop performance may be thougher than per-hop latency... it usually
divides by 2, so n hops would be 1/2^n performance of the main node.
Which could be fine if you can provide fairness to prevent a kind of
capture effect of the nearest nodes.


Rubens



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] GPS synced systems

[Rubens Kuhl]

RedMAX 3.5 GHz (not for use in the US) products sure use GPS.
RedConnec AN-80i don't.
Is the 3.65 solution  based on RedMAX or AN-80 ?


Rubens


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Jerry Richardson
jrichard...@aircloud.com wrote:
 Redline 3.65?


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:20 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] GPS synced systems

 Other than Canopy, what systems also use GPS sync?

 --


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




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] GPS synced systems

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Eric Muehleisen ericm...@gmail.com wrote:
 Redline Redmax AN-100U and UX both use GPS. I know that Airspan and
 Alvarions 3.65 products also use GPS. I believe anything 802.16d/e uses GPS.

802.16d FDD gear (like one from Alvarion) doesn't require GPS if
memory serves me right... 802.16d/e TDD systems are very likely to
have GPS.




Rubens



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] The Bottom Line

[Rubens Kuhl]

Your best shot is back-hauling to a good capex x opex point as others
pointed out, but if you find that doesn't work, consider using a mix
of T1 bandwidth and one-way (better price and latency than two-way)
satellite service, and policy-route traffic so some of it (usually web
surfing, cache popullation etc.) uses the satellite and transparent or
latency-sensite apps like VoIP goes only terrestrial.

Caching flash videos, Microsoft and anti-virus updates using URL
rewriting will also make more of your costly T1 or T1+satellite. See
http://sourceforge.net/projects/incomum/ or http://cachevideos.com.


Rubens


On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Jason Wallace supp...@azii.net wrote:
 Gang,

    I've been working away, keeping my head down and nose to the
 grindstone for a while.  Last week, I finally looked up and calculated
 what my little WISP is making after 5 years of working on it and working
 another job (sometimes 2 jobs, one of which is being a youth pastor) for
 60 to 80 hours per week.

 For the time I put into the WISP, I make somewhere between 5 and 6
 dollars per hour.

 My biggest obstacle (and expense) is bandwidth.  I am in the high desert
 of SE Arizona, and there are $800 T1's.  That's all I've found.

 Is there any one out there that knows something I don't about bandwidth
 possibilities?  Currently, the margin is just too thin.

 Jason


 
 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] Repeater

[Rubens Kuhl]

One option to consider is a passive repeater. Wire a coax cable
between the two dishes and you are done... no electronics to fail, no
power to supply on a remote location.

(haven't tested this trick with dual polarity, though)


Rubens


On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote:
 I have avoided repeaters like the plague but I have a situation where I have 
 one and I am looking for a better option.  When I started my wisp I was 100% 
 Tranzeo.  At this one location I setup a CPE connected to a TR-6000 that has 
 2 Ethernet ports that pass through POE.  I ran 1 Ethernet up the tower with a 
 POE at the bottom, and a crossover in between.

 I would like a similar layout for other locations.   Issue I see is that not 
 many other units, UBNT or MT have a 2nd Ethernet that pass through POE?

 How does everyone you get around this?

 Trying to stay cheaper than a RB433, 2 radios, and 2- antennas, box, 
 pigtails, 2 LMR cables.

 Steve Barnes
 RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


 
 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] Repeater

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote:
 Ok I have never even thought about doing this.  Does it actually work?  This 
 sounds WAY to simple.


Yes, it does. Passive reflectors and passive repeaters are usual
chapters on microwave literature, and you can read a brief description
of them in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_repeater

 A 29Db Grid on a Grain Leg  pointed at the AP that has a -68 signal plugged 
 into a 24 DB Grid Pointed to the house 1/4 mile away.  What kind of signal 
 would you have on the back side at the house?

Without knowing the frequency it's hard to say, but you can apply the
usual link budget calculations to get an idea. Depending on the
antenna radiation patterns the final result can be different of the
simple link budget (either better due to coupling or worse due to
phase distortion).  I would include some vertical separation on the
tower if possible.

Gut feeling: 1/4 mile is short enough for this to work.


Rubens





 Steve Barnes
 RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
 Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:20 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Repeater

 One option to consider is a passive repeater. Wire a coax cable between the 
 two dishes and you are done... no electronics to fail, no power to supply on 
 a remote location.

 (haven't tested this trick with dual polarity, though)


 Rubens


 On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote:
 I have avoided repeaters like the plague but I have a situation where I have 
 one and I am looking for a better option.  When I started my wisp I was 100% 
 Tranzeo.  At this one location I setup a CPE connected to a TR-6000 that has 
 2 Ethernet ports that pass through POE.  I ran 1 Ethernet up the tower with 
 a POE at the bottom, and a crossover in between.

 I would like a similar layout for other locations.   Issue I see is that not 
 many other units, UBNT or MT have a 2nd Ethernet that pass through POE?

 How does everyone you get around this?

 Trying to stay cheaper than a RB433, 2 radios, and 2- antennas, box, 
 pigtails, 2 LMR cables.

 Steve Barnes
 RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


 --
 --
 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] sprint 4g reviews?

[Rubens Kuhl]

I know they call it 4G, but it's not 4G. See
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Archives/2007/10/WiMAX-is-3G/
Even LTE (when deployed) won't be 4G, only LTE Advanced will, but LTE
will be much closer to 4G than WiMAX 802.16e, see
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/4g/3gpp-imt-lte-advanced-tutorial.php.
May be 802.16m can achieve 4G goals, if WiMAX still lives by then.

Rubens


On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor
evdo.hs...@gmail.com wrote:
 hi guys... it's been a while!

 So since the whole 3g thing went mega corporate and independents like
 me got pushed out, i havent paid much attention to the wireless space
 ... but has anyone here used sprint's 4g network?

 --
 Robert Q Kim
 2611 S Coast Highway
 San Diego, CA 92007
 310 598 1606
 http://disastearth.com
 Natural and Man Made Disasters
 http://bioprin.posterous.com
 Health Myths You Still Believe


 
 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] sprint 4g reviews?

[Rubens Kuhl]

If you are willing to spend a few dollars on an ITU-R document, it's
this one that describes 4G:
http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.1645-0-200306-I/en
(Framework and overall objectives of the future development of
IMT-2000 and systems beyond IMT-2000)

The most famous quote from this document is the data rates - 1 Gbps
for fixed service, 100 Mbps for mobile service.
I'm pretty sure Sprint's Clear service doesn't have such data rates.


Rubens


On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote:
 I've seen articles saying that (I haven't read any of them), but I don't
 buy it.

 Just a few bloggers trying to make a stink.

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



 On 6/5/2010 9:30 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
 I know they call it 4G, but it's not 4G. See
 http://www.wirelessweek.com/Archives/2007/10/WiMAX-is-3G/
 Even LTE (when deployed) won't be 4G, only LTE Advanced will, but LTE
 will be much closer to 4G than WiMAX 802.16e, see
 http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/4g/3gpp-imt-lte-advanced-tutorial.php.
 May be 802.16m can achieve 4G goals, if WiMAX still lives by then.

 Rubens


 On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor
 evdo.hs...@gmail.com  wrote:

 hi guys... it's been a while!

 So since the whole 3g thing went mega corporate and independents like
 me got pushed out, i havent paid much attention to the wireless space
 ... but has anyone here used sprint's 4g network?

 --
 Robert Q Kim
 2611 S Coast Highway
 San Diego, CA 92007
 310 598 1606
 http://disastearth.com
 Natural and Man Made Disasters
 http://bioprin.posterous.com
 Health Myths You Still Believe


 
 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] Free Public WiFi

[Rubens Kuhl]

Making images appear upside-down is more fun:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html

Rubens


On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote:
 For fun I name all the private wifi routers to an SSID of Virus.  The
 attempts to connect have dropped considerably.



 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Patrick Leary
 Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:24 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Public WiFi

 ...a little OT, but, after being party to all the free craziness of
 Earthlink, etc. just the title Free Public Wi-Fi makes me break out in
 hives...


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Steve Barnes
 Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 9:06 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Free Public WiFi

 I am embarrassed to ask here but I am going to anyway.

 I have some customers laptops that have been here lately with the Free
 Public WiFi ssid on them.  I know that this is a Microsoft screw up on
 the Zero Wireless Connections.  I have made the stations so that they
 can only connect to a AP in the future.  But the Free Public WiFi SSID
 still shows up on the systems even when the Wireless card is turned off.
 I have removed all preferred SSIDs and still nothing.  Any one know how
 to kill this out of a Win XP system. (without going to Linux)

 Steve Barnes
 RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


 
 
 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] 802.11n and 40MHz channels in 2.4GHz?

[Rubens Kuhl]

I think Apple has a position on 11n on 2.4 GHz that their devices
won't do 40 MHz on 2.4 GHz.

Rubens


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
 The clients are all Macintosh computers, some the newer MacBooks and some are 
 the older MacBooks. They're all Intel based.

 Greg
 On May 22, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 N is MIMO with 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz channels.  What type of clients are
 you using?

 I'm not even sure why UBNT still makes the Bullets.

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



 On 5/22/2010 12:19 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
 I have a BulletM2 (with 5.2 firmware) which I'm using as AP. Clients will 
 only associate with it when it's using 20MHz channels. Isn't the whole idea 
 with wireless N about using 40MHz channels (channel bonding) for higher 
 throughput? So I started googling. I saw one Google return (on the search 
 page) that seemed to indicate using 40MHz was prohibited in 2.4GHz (maybe 
 for clients?) but when I started clicking on links I couldn't find an 
 article that said as much. But I have noticed this, when I set my BulletM2 
 to 40MHz channels the clients won't associate. Is this just a UBNT issue?

 Greg


 
 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] 5MHz Channel Drawbacks?

[Rubens Kuhl]

I'm not sure about all U-NII bands in the US, but in some countries
one might exceed power spectral density limitations(dBm/MHz) using
narrow channels.




Rubens


On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Robert West robert.w...@just-micro.com wrote:
 I have an area that's developed some noise and after watching the spectrum 
 analyzer all week I'm thinking of going to 5MHz channels there.  I'm using 
 5GHz UBNT APs with all MIMO CPEs.  I did a test with 5MHz width and was 
 hitting 32.5mbps TX, 13mbps RX throughput so that part is cool but are there 
 any drawbacks with going with 5MHz channels???


 Bob-


 
 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] Best Backhaul link 11Ghz 20 miles @ 100MB?

[Rubens Kuhl]

Only good experience with them. The radios just work. Some were 11
GHz, some were 18 GHz, only one or two 7.5 GHz.
Throughput matched the nominal 200/300/400 Mbps for small packets; for
large packets, 170 out of 200 Mbps and 360 out of 400 Mbps; those
values are consistent with IP-based (not SDH/PDH) radios (they are
not 140 or 155 Mbps multiples), but is the total opposite of what we
would usually expect, as it is easier for the radio to deal with small
packets, not harder. Considering the Internet traffic has 50% of 64
bytes packets, that would make the I-mix throughput pretty close to
nominal; the monitoring software has RMON capabilities so you can see
your packet size distribution in real time.

Adaptive modulation worked hitless for reducing speed during rain
periods, but not every time it would go up again. It was a 50-50
chance that ACM would bring the modulation up again, so it's an index
you want to be looking at your NOC.

We did some firmware upgrades without issues; license upgrades were
trickier and sometimes Ceragon had to generate license files again
after we've sent the output from the failed upgrades.

Except for 7.5 GHz units all the models had integrated antennas; we
regret boughting those from RFS instead of Andrew, but Ceragon offered
both and the decision was based on price... :-(

Rubens


On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paolo Di Francesco
paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote:
 Just curious,

 what about Ceragon? Any good/bad experience with them?

 Regards

 We just did a multi leg 11 Ghz system, 2 21 miles plus links.  We are in
 rain zone N so lets see how they hold.

 Used Trango Apex with 4.75 dishes (Trango Branded) Rssi was as expected
 in the low 50's.  Full 256 QAM (260 + Mbps)

 Did I mention both were over water? You cant go wrong with Trango o DW
 Horizon

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

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scott Carullo
 Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:24 AM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Best Backhaul link 11Ghz 20 miles @ 100MB?

 Looking for options...

 Trango Apex is on top of my list for now.  If that needs to change let
 me
 know...  thanks.

 Kinda sticking to 11Ghz because I need to keep the dishes at 4ft or
 under.
 In Florida.  Any other better options let me know.

 Thanks for your time

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102




 
 
 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/



 --


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Teleinform s.r.l.
 Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo
 Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo)
 Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501
 Fax: +39-091-6406200

 http://www.wikitel.it
 http://www.teleinform.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] Best Backhaul link 11Ghz 20 miles @ 100MB?

[Rubens Kuhl]

Prior to be replaced with Ceragon, most of the radios were Nera (bad
choice) with Andrew antennas (good choice). The Andrew antennas had
better alignment controls and, most important, better fixation and
waterproofing. Andrew antennas also had more diameter options, like
having three-feet, not just two or four-feet.


Rubens




On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
regret boughting those from RFS instead of Andrew, but Ceragon offered
both and the decision was based on price... :-(

 Why do you dislike the RFS antenna compared to the Andrews?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best Backhaul link 11Ghz 20 miles @ 100MB?


 Only good experience with them. The radios just work. Some were 11
 GHz, some were 18 GHz, only one or two 7.5 GHz.
 Throughput matched the nominal 200/300/400 Mbps for small packets; for
 large packets, 170 out of 200 Mbps and 360 out of 400 Mbps; those
 values are consistent with IP-based (not SDH/PDH) radios (they are
 not 140 or 155 Mbps multiples), but is the total opposite of what we
 would usually expect, as it is easier for the radio to deal with small
 packets, not harder. Considering the Internet traffic has 50% of 64
 bytes packets, that would make the I-mix throughput pretty close to
 nominal; the monitoring software has RMON capabilities so you can see
 your packet size distribution in real time.

 Adaptive modulation worked hitless for reducing speed during rain
 periods, but not every time it would go up again. It was a 50-50
 chance that ACM would bring the modulation up again, so it's an index
 you want to be looking at your NOC.

 We did some firmware upgrades without issues; license upgrades were
 trickier and sometimes Ceragon had to generate license files again
 after we've sent the output from the failed upgrades.

 Except for 7.5 GHz units all the models had integrated antennas; we
 regret boughting those from RFS instead of Andrew, but Ceragon offered
 both and the decision was based on price... :-(

 Rubens


 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paolo Di Francesco
 paolo.difrance...@teleinform.com wrote:
 Just curious,

 what about Ceragon? Any good/bad experience with them?

 Regards

 We just did a multi leg 11 Ghz system, 2 21 miles plus links. We are in
 rain zone N so lets see how they hold.

 Used Trango Apex with 4.75 dishes (Trango Branded) Rssi was as expected
 in the low 50's. Full 256 QAM (260 + Mbps)

 Did I mention both were over water? You cant go wrong with Trango o DW
 Horizon

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

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scott Carullo
 Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:24 AM
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: [WISPA] Best Backhaul link 11Ghz 20 miles @ 100MB?

 Looking for options...

 Trango Apex is on top of my list for now. If that needs to change let
 me
 know... thanks.

 Kinda sticking to 11Ghz because I need to keep the dishes at 4ft or
 under.
 In Florida. Any other better options let me know.

 Thanks for your time

 Scott Carullo
 Brevard Wireless
 321-205-1100 x102




 
 
 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/



 --


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Teleinform s.r.l.
 Sede Legale: Via Francesco Paolo Di Blasi 1, 90144 Palermo
 Unita' Operativa: Via Regione Siciliana 49, 90046 Monreale (Palermo)
 Tel: +39-091-6408576, +39-091-6404501
 Fax: +39-091-6406200

 http://www.wikitel.it
 http://www.teleinform.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

Re: [WISPA] Alvarion 3.65ghz NLOS as good as 900mhz?

[Rubens Kuhl]

That would only be true if the data services are somewhat
purpose-specific and not Internet access. Doing what this vendor told
you would seriously affect aggregate performance of the cell because
of low rate modulation of the NLOS and/or distant customers.

If you are doing sensor networks or POS connection you will be fine
with all those BPSK/QPSK customers, indeed.


Rubens


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote:
 Has anyone seen the Alvarion 3.65ghz 802.16e equipment in operation? Was
 talking to one vendor that claimed if you run the system in MIMO that with
 the diversity you can do NLOS as good as 900mhz and if you get the AP on a
 300ft tower that it starts to feel like 700mhz. He claimed the NLOS was so
 good that people are ripping out complete old systems of 900mhz and 2.4ghz
 and putting in the single system of 3.65ghz to serve their entire customer
 base.



 Just wondering if anyone has experience or having seen this firsthand.



 Kurt Fankhauser
 WAVELINC
 P.O. Box 126
 Bucyrus, OH 44820
 419-562-6405
 www.wavelinc.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] Alvarion 3.65ghz NLOS as good as 900mhz?

[Rubens Kuhl]

There is no protocol design that can achieve that. A TDD system is a
population of time slots; if a bunch of users (not just a couple) with
high traffic demand (not low traffic or small bursts) have low
modulation, it will talke more time slots to serve them. If a fairness
system based on bandwidth is in place them all of the users will still
suffer; if a fairness system based on time-slots is in place they
won't get the service you promised them. There is no free lunch.

I've run a 3.5 GHz WiMAX system with 3.5 MHz channels and the base
station was always complaining the system was too oversubscribed;
guess what, it was right, we were trying to serve more than feasible
CIR/MIR traffic on those BSTs. Having a rule that only QAM16/QAM64
stations were allowed improved this problem a lot.


Rubens




On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote:
 I too have heard from others that WIMAX was designed so that the customers
 with poor connections don't take performance away from the rest with good
 connections. So far I have yet to hear ANYONE disprove this.

 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 Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:24 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion 3.65ghz NLOS as good as 900mhz?

 I am not using alvarion 3.65 but I am using wimax. I have a couple
 customers with lower modulation because of non line of site situations
 and have seen no impact on the entire system in general. Supposedly
 wimax is engineered to handle some of this better than my alvarion 900.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

 That would only be true if the data services are somewhat
 purpose-specific and not Internet access. Doing what this vendor told
 you would seriously affect aggregate performance of the cell because
 of low rate modulation of the NLOS and/or distant customers.

 If you are doing sensor networks or POS connection you will be fine
 with all those BPSK/QPSK customers, indeed.


 Rubens


 On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Kurt Fankhauser
 k...@wavelinc.com wrote:
 Has anyone seen the Alvarion 3.65ghz 802.16e equipment in
 operation? Was
 talking to one vendor that claimed if you run the system in MIMO
 that with
 the diversity you can do NLOS as good as 900mhz and if you get the
 AP on a
 300ft tower that it starts to feel like 700mhz. He claimed the
 NLOS was so
 good that people are ripping out complete old systems of 900mhz and
 2.4ghz
 and putting in the single system of 3.65ghz to serve their entire
 customer
 base.



 Just wondering if anyone has experience or having seen this
 firsthand.



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


 
 
 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] Customers routers backwards?

[Rubens Kuhl]

These are filters that I've designed for AirOS 3.x (Ubiquiti) but you
can get the general idea which is to allow only unicast traffic and
specific broadcast traffic, and then drop everything else. Rules are
backward enumerated and the idea is to have the unicast traffic as the
first match.



rc.poststart
-
#/bin/sh
GW_MAC=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
CMD=ebtables -t nat -I PREROUTING 1
$CMD -i eth0 -j DROP
$CMD -i eth0 -p IPV4 -d Broadcast --ip-proto UDP --ip-sport 67
--ip-dport 68  -j ACCEPT
$CMD -i eth0 -p ARP -d Broadcast -j ACCEPT
$CMD -i eth0 -p ARP -d $GW_MAC -j ACCEPT
$CMD -i eth0 -p IPV4 -d $GW_MAC -j ACCEPT
$CMD -i ath0 -j ACCEPT
ebtables -I INPUT 1 -i eth0 -j DROP


rc.prestop
--
#/bin/sh
ebtables -t nat -D  PREROUTING 1:6
ebtables -D INPUT 1

Rubens

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Ghering rgher...@gmail.com wrote:
 We've had this happen a efw times and its very time consuming to find
 and stop. I.e the customer plays with cables and ens up sending DHCP
 into the network

 anyone know of a way with mikrotik routers to stop this, we use
 mikrotik for our core router and tower side bridges, I'd love to put a
 firewall setup on them to stop this. and track down.

 Thanks --
 Ryan Ghering
 Network Operations - Plains.Net
 Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879


 
 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] Ubiquity VLAN Capability

[Rubens Kuhl]

And what about associating SSIDs with VLANs ?


Rubens


On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote:
 You can telnet into the unit and run vconfig to do whatever kind of VLAN'ing
 you want.  This is what we do, via an rc. script put in the /etc/persistent
 directory.
 Check the forum.

 On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Tracy Tippett 
 tracytipp...@swiftwireless.com wrote:


 Has anyone had experience getting the Nano products to support multiple
 VLANs I looked at the forum but wasn't able to decipher a clear answer.
  Does it require a third party software patch?

 Tracy Tippett

 --Original Mail--
 From: Jeremy Parr jeremyp...@gmail.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:26:15 -0400
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison

 On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
  Did you do a throughput comparison?

 It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not
 fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point
 was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+
 years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today
 that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the
 market demands cheap.



 
 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] looking for iperf test site with 1G open

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:34 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thats leads me to a question. I note RB's website specs for the 450G says:
 Actual tested throughput Ether1 - Ether2 = 1Gbps

For large-large-large packets, as these boards are pps limited.

 Ether2 - Ether3 = 650Mbps 1Gbps throughput on ports 1-2

That's because Ether 2 to 5 are connected to a single gigabit CPU
port.  It should read 500 Mbps and not 650 Mbps, as 650 Mbps would
imply a 1.3Gbps port.


 Is the 750 the same?

THe RB750 don't use the RB450G and RB750G switch chip.
(http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Switch_Chip_Features)

 Also, what does optional Switch Chip functionality for wire speed
 Gigabit throughput. mean?

It means if you configure switching instead of CPU-forwarding on these
ports, they will get wire speed throughput. But it will be limited
layer-2 and may be tag insertion/removal, some L3/L4 ACLs if they are
small.

 This is interesting as well:
 Comparing to RB750, the G version adds not only Gigabit capable ports, but
 a new 680MHz Atheros 7161 CPU for increased throughput. Up to 580Mbps
 throughout with larger packets, and up to 91500pps with small packets!

According to the page above RB750G doesn't have the all-port-switch
option of RB450G, which suggests it only has one gigabit connection to
the CPU. The fact that all RB750G ports have the same MTU
(http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Maximum_Transmission_Unit_on_RouterBoards),
when RB450G Ether1 has a slightly larger MTU than RB450G Ether2-5
suggests that as well.


Rubens



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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net
p...@believewireless.net wrote:
 After some large experiments with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we
 come!  Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues.  These
 seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for
 VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes.

Is it a coincidence that your e-mail address is canopy@ ? :-)

I've noticed WDS problems with Wi-Fi gear for a long time; previously
it was more easily triggered by security protocols and channel
selections. With 802.11n there seems to be added problems with
association and performance impacts on the 802.11n MAC aggregation
mechanisms.

That's why I currently believe in scaling Wi-Fi based (even with
proprietary polling protocols like nstreme or AirMax) without using
WDS, which is not part of the 802.11 specification BTW. One can add a
Mikrotik RB-750 at every customer site for US$40 and achieve whatever
Layer-2 transparency (by using MPLS/VPLS, EoIP, Ethernet over PPP) and
user enforcement/control (filtering to allow only PPPoE frames, doing
a hotspot authentication at the RB750 or what fits best your business
model) and then use whatever radio network is offering good quality at
good prices at that time.

Regarding the latency spikes, 802.11e might be useful and probably
more powerful having a CPE device that could mark QoS/ToS/DSCP/CoS/EXP
before it comes to the radio. I haven't seen a working 802.11e-based
network yet, but there are very few end-to-end QoS-enabled IP networks
on the world and it took $M, not $k, money to build them, so it was
very unlikely that I could find one with 802.11 devices. But for the
price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what
could be done.


Rubens



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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:
But for the
price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what
could be done.

 Well, thats the golden question...

 We dont currently use Ubiquiti yet in a live network, but we cant ignore the
 value proposition.
 When APs are $90, do we need APs that scale?

canopy@ made a good point that when you can only operate at 5.8 GHz
which has only 6 channels, AP scaling is important. But
although he or she is right that Ubiquiti cannot be used right now in
the US at 5.4 GHz, that's just a matter of time. And 5.4 GHz can
tolerate lesser spectral efficiency as it has much more spectrum and
have power limits and DFS requirements that is very positive in making
inter-provider interference easier to handle.


 But we do need radios that stay associated though.

 Good to hear, some are reporting the new beta5 firmware is appearing to run
 stable with WDS.

Which might be just a breathe before another bug or impact of WDS is
noticed in the field.
And it's not Ubiquiti's fault, it's WDS fault. May be next time IEEE
come up with a good WDS solution on the standard, but for now, it's
seems a liability.

Rubens



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] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

[Rubens Kuhl]

What UBNT has shown is that one can go inexpensive alternatives and
make them good products.
The equivalent in WiMAX is PureWave Networks; their base station can
do MIMO and beamforming and doesn't require an ASN-GW, which was the
higher CAPEX for a small 802.16e deployment until they came along.

Being 16e means you can have 10 MHz channels (best there is in the
WiMAX world before 20 MHz 16m), MIMO, beamforming and can buy all
those cheap asian CPEs instead of the vendor lock-in that happens in
16d.

http://www.purewavenetworks.com



Rubens


On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote:
 802.11 and its MIMO costs are not relevant to WiMAX and its MIMO costs.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:17 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Regular MIMO doesn't have to be expensive, UBNT has proven that.  More
 complicated forms of diversity, well, that remains to be seen.


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



 --
 From: Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:04 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Indeed MIMO does help through trees according to people I trust, but
 again we default to the but at what cost question. We believe this
 to
 be especially true in more rural deployments.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
 Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:52 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Subchannelization should help penetration a little also.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do you support PPPoE in the SM?  Heard that MIMO helps tree
 penetration.

 Matt


 Yes, but you won't pay $200 for their CPE complete and our base
 station costs are less or similar and we are getting much better
 uplink speed according to what I have seen so far from reports about
 the Moto 320 so far.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

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

 On Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:30 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 I think the new motorola is mimo.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

 We don't know about you, but we at California-based Aperto
 Networks

 are tired of waiting for stimulus dollars to trickle into the WISP
 business, so we are taking matters into our own hands. So Aperto
 Networks -- the
 802.16 pioneer and WiMAX leader -- is excited to offer the 3.65
 and

 5

 GHz carrier class and commercial grade (not the residential CPE)
 PM320 PacketMAX CPE for only $199 each to the WISP. Effective
 immediately, the price applies to all N type CPE in either band
 and
 17 dbi integrated
 (3.65 GHz) and 20 dBi (5 GHz). 5 GHz with integrated 21 dBi and
 3.65 GHz
 with integrated 20 dBi are $220 to the WISP. There are no packs
 and

 no minimum quantities to get this price -- buy even just one, same
 price.

 Is there 3.65 stuff MIMO?

 Matt


 ---
 ---
 ---
 ---
 
 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: 

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

[Rubens Kuhl]

What you call a total myth (CPE x basestation interopoerability) is
something that I actually tested in the field with 3.5 GHz .16e, which
is not as popular as 2.3/2.5 WiBro/Clearwire/Yota frequencies.

If Aperto has such interoperability issues, please talk only for
Aperto, not for the marketplace.


Rubens


On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote:
 Myth. Total Myth. There is no interoperability in 3.65 GHz that allows 
 someone to source .16e CPE from any number of Cheap asian CPEs. That is one 
 of the most 180 degrees wrong myths.

 The fact is that every vendor, regardless of the WiMAX standard, sells its 
 own CPE precisely because the interoperability hype is total bull.

 What has happened is that unknowledgable people have confused the WiMAX 
 Forum's efforts re interoperability in 2.5 GHz (limited as even that is) with 
 it being somehow relative to other frequencies like quasi-licensed 3.65 GHz.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:45 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 What UBNT has shown is that one can go inexpensive alternatives and make them 
 good products.
 The equivalent in WiMAX is PureWave Networks; their base station can do MIMO 
 and beamforming and doesn't require an ASN-GW, which was the higher CAPEX for 
 a small 802.16e deployment until they came along.

 Being 16e means you can have 10 MHz channels (best there is in the WiMAX 
 world before 20 MHz 16m), MIMO, beamforming and can buy all those cheap asian 
 CPEs instead of the vendor lock-in that happens in 16d.

 http://www.purewavenetworks.com



 Rubens


 On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com wrote:
 802.11 and its MIMO costs are not relevant to WiMAX and its MIMO costs.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:17 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Regular MIMO doesn't have to be expensive, UBNT has proven that.  More
 complicated forms of diversity, well, that remains to be seen.


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



 --
 From: Patrick Leary ple...@apertonet.com
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:04 AM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Indeed MIMO does help through trees according to people I trust, but
 again we default to the but at what cost question. We believe this
 to
 be especially true in more rural deployments.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
 Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:52 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 Subchannelization should help penetration a little also.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do you support PPPoE in the SM?  Heard that MIMO helps tree
 penetration.

 Matt


 Yes, but you won't pay $200 for their CPE complete and our base
 station costs are less or similar and we are getting much better
 uplink speed according to what I have seen so far from reports
 about the Moto 320 so far.


 Patrick Leary
 Aperto Networks
 813.426.4230 mobile

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

 On Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:30 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

 I think the new motorola is mimo.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

 We don't know about you, but we at California-based Aperto
 Networks

 are tired of waiting for stimulus dollars to trickle into the
 WISP business, so we are taking matters into our own hands. So
 Aperto Networks -- the
 802.16 pioneer and WiMAX leader -- is excited to offer the 3.65
 and

 5

 GHz carrier class and commercial grade (not the residential CPE)
 PM320 PacketMAX CPE for only $199 each to the WISP. Effective
 immediately, the price applies to all N type CPE in either band
 and
 17 dbi integrated
 (3.65 GHz) and 20 dBi (5 GHz). 5 GHz with integrated 21 dBi and
 3.65 GHz
 with integrated 20 dBi are $220 to the WISP. There are no packs
 and

 no minimum quantities to get this price -- buy even just one,
 same price.

 Is there 3.65 stuff MIMO?

 Matt


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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote:
 For us WiMAX neophytes, could you explain the ASN gateway and why it's
 on your list of things you don't want?

An ASN gateway sits between the Radio Access Network (where there are
only tunnels from the base station to the ASN GW) and the Core
Services Network, where the traffic seen is the user traffic. You can
see a better explation with diagrams in:

http://www.tutorialspoint.com/wimax/wimax_network_model.htm

ASN gateways are usually expensive, as are the BSC (Base Station
Controllers) that have a similar role in cellular networks. What Pure
Wave is doing is something that was once know as Profile B where the
base station could work without an ASN gateway. Navini gear before
Cisco also worked like this, which is very similar to what an Wi-Fi
Access-Point usually does.

In larger networks ASN gateways are essential to scaling the network
and the ones I've tested were pretty good. I just don't want to pay
the price of them.


Rubens



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] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Randy Cosby dco...@infowest.com wrote:
 Thanks.  Now, on the Motorola 320, for example, the ASN gateway is not
 part of the picture, correct?

According ot its specs, no ASN gateway is required:

Low Cost Infrastructure The CAP 320 does not require ASN gateways or
specialized CSN servers. The
system efficiently runs over a wireless backhaul by performing local
peer-to-peer routing at the base
station.

http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Business/Products/Wireless%20Networks/Wireless%20Broadband%20Networks/Point%20to%20Multi-point%20Networks/Canopy%20Products/PMP_320_Series/WB_CAP%20320_Specification%20Sheet.pdf?localeId=33

The Motorola 16e APs I've tested required an ASN gateway but they
indeed mentioned they were working on not having it as a requirement.
It's probably good though that a base station could be configured to
use an ASN gateway, flexibility is never too much (unless it increases
pricing... :-).


Rubens



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] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal

[Rubens Kuhl]

 anyone know the benefits of WiMax?

 I will leave most of the sales guys that man these lists, but there are
 a number of benefits to WiMAX that make it a better solution than simple
 polling or tdma approaches.

After working some years in a WiMAX operator I couldn't agree more
with Butch. The technology is incredibly good for outdoor networks.
But besides better pricing (CPE, BS, spectrum), one thing I missed
from current WiMAX technology was large channel size. Fixed WiMAX is
usually available with 3.5 or 7 MHz channels; mobile WiMAX with 5 or
10 MHz channels. Wi-Fi already had non-standard 40 MHz with Turbo A/G
and now has 40 MHz standard with 802.11n. With a small channel, even a
high goodput/Hz couldn't go very far coping with increasing demands
and we ended up installing unlicensed spectrum radios.

My current mindset is that WiMAX is good for every application besides
Internet access for computers. Surveillance, telephony and Internet
access for mobile devices (including public safety and first
responders) are all applications that WiMAX would edge out any other
technology available on the market, as of Q1CY2010.

4G WiMAX (802.16m) might change that, I don't know. Will wait and see.


Rubens



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] Your experiences - RB750/RB750G Durability

[Rubens Kuhl]

I would try a different (i.e., better) AC-DC power converter before
blaming the board.


Rubens

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote:
 Will not be buying any more of them. Don't know how these things ever got
 FCC/CE certified. Plug the ehernet into them and very broad noise is emmited
 from the 145mhz-160mhz band. Local fire chief was not very happy with what
 this did to his 2-way radio equipment.

 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 Greg Ihnen
 Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:10 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Your experiences - RB750/RB750G Durability

 Has anyone had any experiences good or bad with the RB750/750G as it relates
 to the toughness of the Ethernet ports? I had an RB750 go down. Don't know
 if it was due to some not very nearby lightning.

 Greg


 
 
 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] Your experiences - RB750/RB750G Durability

[Rubens Kuhl]

If throughput requirements are up to 10 Mbps, forcing a 10 Mbps
Full-Duplex connection will change noise from the 125 MHz range
(100Mbps with 4B5B coding) to the 20 MHz range (10Mbps with Manchester
coding).


Rubens


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Gary Garrett ggarr...@nidaho.net wrote:
 I have had problems with ethernet causing noise  on 145-150 Mhz also.
 This was not Mikrotik anything.

 I think it is several RF sources mixing in the switch and retransmitting
 a harmonic. It depends on what the combination of transmit Freqs at the
 site is.  Shielded cable, ferrite beads and grounding did not help. Only
 physical separation stopped the problem.




 On 3/15/2010 4:28 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:
 I've got about 40 to 50 of the 750's in the field and I've not heard one
 problem from any customer, (FYI one of these customers is the local
 Volunteer Fire Dept.) I'm gona dig out my old scope and test this out
 tonight..

 Ryan

 On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Kurt Fankhauserk...@wavelinc.com  wrote:


 Will not be buying any more of them. Don't know how these things ever got
 FCC/CE certified. Plug the ehernet into them and very broad noise is
 emmited
 from the 145mhz-160mhz band. Local fire chief was not very happy with what
 this did to his 2-way radio equipment.




 
 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/