Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Butch Evans]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Charles Wu wrote:

So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding 
Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own 
curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations


You didn't do quite enough research.  :-)

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm 
wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)


Ok.  I'll do it, but I'll be gentle.  ;-)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in 
price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good 
job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of 
the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra 
R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than 
just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi


Here's the part that you missed.  This thread is about putting 
Mikrotik on the nanostations.  Mikrotik, if it can be installed on 
the NS, enables the ability to run NStreme, which supports the 
option to turn off CSMA.


That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is 
not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current 
market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems 
that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and 
doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


Out of curiosity, where are your numbers coming from?  I'm not 
doubting that Tranzeo is a "market leader", but would like to see 
some clarification of this or know if it is simply an opinion.


If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you 
factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, 
you're back at that $150 / CPE level


Correct here.  The "good news" is that while the AirOS is very nice, 
it is not NEAR as functional as Mikrotik.  The thing that makes this 
attractive to WISPs is cost, but even more than that, it is the 
combination of cost + MT functionality + a very nice package.


With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 
802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


Very good question.

--

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*



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] Nanostations - question

[Randy Cosby]

There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and 
Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more.  Things like 
firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc.  And they have had 
a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations.  All of mine 
just work.  Oh, and fcc-approved 5.4 :)  They seem to be at or near the 
end of their development timeline though for the current product line.  
So on the surface, feature-wise, NS does trump them.  I just don't trust 
them yet.

My first experience with the NS5 in a PTP link was not the best.  
Eventually a beta firmware helped stop it from locking up randomly after 
a few days.  Not something I'd use for another year or more for a 
critical client.

Randy


Charles Wu wrote:


That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS





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] Nanostations - question

[Scottie Arnett]

Charles, we are a Canopy shop. I think most are looking at the ability to 
compete more profitably with DSL/cable...at least that is what I am after. Not 
counting the build out of lines/cable to the customer, the DSL/Cable Co's are 
out around $50 or less for the CPE end. I have not looked in a while, but about 
2 years ago I could get some used 24/48 port dslams for around $3,000...just 
saw a 48 port lucent stinger on ebay for $1500...so about the same price of a 
new 900Mhz Canopy AP.

While it cost us WISP alot less than DSL/Cable to build our infrastructure, 
they are out MUCH less for the CPE end and offering carrier class broadband. I 
am putting the cable buildout to the side, because they already had this done 
for telephone/TV and have that added revenue to pay for that already.

So, yes, a sub $100 CPE is what I am looking for. It may not be carrier class, 
but if it works...I am all for it.

just my thoughts,
Scottie Arnett 

-- Original Message --
From: Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:11:58 -0500

>So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
>peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
>research on Nanostations
>
>(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
>I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
>Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
>being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the 
>Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
>products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
>"WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
>That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
>a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
>however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
>still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
>Nanostation and AirOS
>
>If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
>the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
>$150 / CPE level
>
>With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
>WISP buy anything else?
>
>-Charles
>
>---
>WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
>Coming to a City Near You
>http://www.winog.com
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
>Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
>You know,
>
>It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
>It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
>client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.
>
>A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Travis Johnson wrote:
>Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
>currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
>month of now).
>
>If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
>Travis
>
>Matt Ferre wrote:
>
>One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
>version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
>momentum.
>
>
>
>First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
>in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
>that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
>applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
>their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
>any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
>your problems.
>
>
>
>Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
>that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
>Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
>similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
>And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
>oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
>having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
>Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
>supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
>hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
>why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
>giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
>manufactured and shipped and warrantied to so

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Blair Davis]

Long time, Charles!

All my 802.11bg problems are client talking to AP.  In all cases, the
client can hear the AP just fine.

Charles Wu wrote:

  Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
  

23dbm into a 19db antenna = 42dbm out (cpe to AP)


  -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

  
The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
  

26dbm into a 10db antenna = 36dbm out (cpe to AP)

  -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
>From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a Trango CPQ can do
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

Sometimes, I really need that extra 6db!

  
So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?
  

Because, as I have aged, I find that I LOVE all-in-one radio/antenna
with NO connections exposed to the weather!  And no coax to kink... Or
fill with water... And no more Coax Seal or mastic!!  And from a
troubleshooting/repair standpoint it makes things so simple.  Swap the
radio, load the settings and you are out of there!

But, I still use Hyperlink 24db grids with the tranzeo CPQ-N as
needed.  I plan to use the NS 2 with them now, as needed, but it is
rare.  Most of the time, when I need that much extra, I put the user on
turbocell.  Soon to be netstream...


  
-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
  
  
So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some research on Nanostations

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi


  
  I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
  
  
That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


  
  IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
  
  
If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level


  
  I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
  
  
With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


  
  Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
  
  
-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

You know,

It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...

It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.

A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo

1)  3 year warranty
2)  Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good 
luck getting them consistently.
3)  Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers.  
There are already some questions about the durability of the Nanos, 
especially in environments with lots of moisture or sea
4)  Proven, reliable firmware.  
5)  Tranzeo support

Might be some others, but that is off the top of my head.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

Charles Wu wrote:
> Hi Blair,
>
> A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications
>
> CPQ-N: $165
> CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)
>
> +23 dBm Output Power Max
> -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
> -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
> Features:
> Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
>
> The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications
>
> NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)
>
> +26 dBm Output Power Max
> -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
> -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
> Features:
> >From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
> >Trango CPQ can do
>
> So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
> pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
> stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?
>
> -Charles
>
>   




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] Nanostations - question

[Charles Wu]

Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
-85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)

The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
-92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
>From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
>Trango CPQ can do

So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?

-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Forrest W. Christian]

Charles Wu wrote:
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>   
Well, you might be surprised how many Canopy/Trango/Alvarion wisps are 
deploying Nanostations where the RoI on a normal AP isn't in line.   
We're actually deploying Nanostations to cover those situations where 
you have 2-3 subs you can't see from any of your AP's, but a neighbor's 
house can see both one of your AP's and the subs.

Basically we're adding a Nanostation to a standard Canopy Install... so 
for the cost of the Nanostation, we gain the ability to cover those 
subscribers.

-forrest



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] Nanostations - question

[Blair Davis]

Charles,

I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so.  I 
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I 
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), 
and the cpq-19 as needed.

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>   
I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might 
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE 
costs.
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>   
IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and 
allow us to keep the install costs down.
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>   
I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.  
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my 
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>   
Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain, 
I'll use tranzeo
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying t

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Travis Johnson]

I agree. But the rest of us that are using a protocol like Nstreme on 
Mikrotik, would like another solution. We currently pay about $180 for a 
nice, professional looking Mikrotik CPE (including antenna, card, 
pigtail, PoE, etc). If we could get a NS for $80 and put a MT license on 
it for $40, that's a $60 saving per CPE... which adds up fast when you 
are doing hundreds of installs per month.

Travis
Microserv

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
>
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Sam Tetherow]

You've summed it up pretty good.  I have a few in the field and so far 
they are holding up well.  I've been buying the NS5s when I need new CPE 
equipment (and I can find someone who has them in stock).

For residential deployments they are currently my CPE of choice.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Charles Wu wrote:
> So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has 
> peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some 
> research on Nanostations
>
> (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
> I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)
>
> Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
> being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with 
> the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
> products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
> "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi
>
> That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
> running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
> Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" 
> (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
> of the Nanostation and AirOS
>
> If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
> the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
> $150 / CPE level
>
> With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
> WISP buy anything else?
>
> -Charles
>
> ---
> WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
> Coming to a City Near You
> http://www.winog.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
>
> You know,
>
> It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
>
> It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
> client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of 
> us.
>
> A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size 
> needed.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
> Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
> currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
> month of now).
>
> If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.
>
> Travis
>
> Matt Ferre wrote:
>
> One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
>
> version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
>
> momentum.
>
>
>
> First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
>
> in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
>
> that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based
>
> applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
>
> their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
>
> any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
>
> your problems.
>
>
>
> Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
>
> that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.
>
>
>
> Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
>
> similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.
>
>
>
> And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
>
> oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
>
> having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
>
> Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
>
> supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
>
> hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand
>
> why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware
>
> giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be
>
> manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are
>
> already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
>
> the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.
>
>
>
> People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
>
> an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
>
> unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
>
> than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
>
> would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.
>
>
>
> If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
>
> market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
>
> would be perfect for their hardw

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

[Charles Wu]

So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked 
my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity,  I decided to do some research 
on Nanostations

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to 
being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the 
Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those 
products are paying for the extra R&D effort put into developing a more 
"WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi

That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS

If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
$150 / CPE level

With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP 
buy anything else?

-Charles

---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

You know,

It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...

It needs to be a client.  802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp 
client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.

A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they 
currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per 
month of now).

If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP.

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:

One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'

version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the

momentum.



First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse

in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at

that time became the high power card of choice for all MT based

applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

your problems.



Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS.  I don't understand

why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware

giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40.  Hardware has to be

manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent.  If they are

already writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less

than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It

would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.



If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend

market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path

would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as

well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make

$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS

network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after

manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,

especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti

really expressed and interest in working with them.



Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...



Sam Tetherow

Sandhills Wireless