Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
John, It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear? On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly. Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to post info shortly thereafter. John -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 04:14 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access. Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and 5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls. Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls, just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers. Sounds like an Interference battle to me. I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote I took the road less travelled, and it made all the difference, Robert Frost. 5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to Cisco's definition :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share numbers John Thomas -Original Message- From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List'' Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Lonnie, What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is flawed. I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end points to blanket an area. However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example. OSPF, has been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link. MESH is working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links. So Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. But I don't feel what it adds is mesh. Mesh is not a protocol, its a topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy MESHes. What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology. I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by MESH. The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission. So in summary, Progress is not a Solution. Progress is a science project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just progress. When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution. My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to determine the best path and how it will effect others. The inteligence to compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in real time, at packet speed. MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a solution yet. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with your alternate path. What is so terrible about that? Lonnie On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that. Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with Cell/Sector models more effectively. As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that task. I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove that, but there is no reason for me to. Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access. Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and 5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls. Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls, just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers. Sounds like an Interference battle to me. I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote I took the road less travelled, and it made all the difference, Robert Frost. 5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to Cisco's definition :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share numbers John Thomas -Original Message- From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List'' Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I am in agreement. Mesh is being abused by some people. Mesh is a routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing mechanisms. You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing. That is all we are doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option. I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let the MESH guys have their buzzwords. Lonnie On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie, What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is flawed. I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end points to blanket an area. However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example. OSPF, has been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link. MESH is working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links. So Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. But I don't feel what it adds is mesh. Mesh is not a protocol, its a topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy MESHes. What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology. I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by MESH. The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission. So in summary, Progress is not a Solution. Progress is a science project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just progress. When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution. My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to determine the best path and how it will effect others. The inteligence to compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in real time, at packet speed. MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a solution yet. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with your alternate path. What is so terrible about that? Lonnie On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that. Our
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I am in agreement. Mesh is being abused by some people. Mesh is a routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing mechanisms. No. OLSR is a routing protoco like RIP/OLSR. Meshis a network design like Bus, Star and Ring. Mesh is overloaping Stars produced from one or more PtPa nd PtMP links. Look at Matt Liotta's PDF, its explained very well. You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing. That is all we are doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option. I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let the MESH guys have their buzzwords. We dont need our own buzz words to muddy thing any more. Jeromie Lonnie On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie, What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is flawed. I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end points to blanket an area. However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example. OSPF, has been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link. MESH is working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links. So Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. But I don't feel what it adds is mesh. Mesh is not a protocol, its a topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy MESHes. What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology. I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by MESH. The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission. So in summary, Progress is not a Solution. Progress is a science project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just progress. When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution. My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to determine the best path and how it will effect others. The inteligence to compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in real time, at packet speed. MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a solution yet. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be a much better choice John -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where we really, really need it. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Here in Atlanta, Metrocom reported that it took 4 times the average number of nodes to provide coverage. Technology has changed a good deal since then, but then again they were also using 900Mhz, which has a lot more success with our pine trees than 2.4Ghz. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad -Original Message- From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be a much better choice John -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where we really, really need it. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
OLSR does put its handshaking on the sectors, but you are right, no data traffic goes down that alternate until the primary fails. The changeover is typically within 15 to 30 seconds. The other cool thing is being able to add ADSL backups into the system, at various spots (could be T1, cable, etc), and by assigning weights to them, you can have automatic gateway selection if your primary goes down. We have had these backups and alternate paths for years, but we managed them manually. It worked but what a pain it was, and things were frantic while you tried to figure out what went down and then get in and change routing by hand. Once things restored we had to go back in and roll the changes back. It was cool to be able to do those things, but it is even cooler to have those same capabilities but not to have to any of the manual changing. In this way I do say that smart engineers (OLSR developers) have coded the thing to be better than a human network techie (me). I know networking better than a lot of you guys and I still make mistakes. OLSR does not seem to be fooled and I have no hesitation in saying it is better than I am at routing decisions. Is it perfect? Is it the answer for all routing? NO to both, but it sure beats the way a lot of people are doing it. Lonnie On 2/25/06, Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or how about automatic sector failover that puts no traffic on the network when things are working correctly. Brad -Original Message- From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with your alternate path. What is so terrible about that? Lonnie On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with Cell/Sector models more effectively. As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that task. I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove that, but there is no reason for me to. Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Matt, I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them than are there. I am in no way attacking the validity of your
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share numbers John Thomas -Original Message- From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List'' Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be a much better choice John -Original Message- From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where we really, really need it. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
capable, but because the engineer has not yet been proven capable to program the computer to be more capable. Discuss muni issues in a non-technical thread. Wether you recognize it or not, technology has no value if not applied to a business case to solve. Technology's applications are well relivent to technolgy discussions. I'd argue that one of the big mistakes of technical people is they get trapped inside the technology, and design without adequately understanding the applications and ultimate goal of using the technology. For example, the task is not to reduce packet loss, its to be able to serve consumers more reliably. There is a big difference between the two. One approach is narrow and one is broad. What often happens, is technical people make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the technology. Just my 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom DeReggi wrote: Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its all in one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, easy to backup, etc. What does mesh offer for better complete central management? You seem to be suggesting that I simply haven't looked for information to back up your argument. Not sure why that makes sense to you. Anyway, I am not making arguments based upon information I read somewhere. My company operates a very large network that makes use of mesh, star, and ring network architectures. Some of it is fiber-based, while other parts are wireless. We are a highly technical, but practical company. In other words, we do a vast amount of research before doing field trials. After we are satisfied that the technical works in the field the way we expect and ultimately want, only then do we deploy it. I can make intelligent statements in regard to mesh because of this. It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments. I suggest you field trial the technology in a meaningful way before dismissing it. In regard to your actual question, I would request that you be more specific. We manage all of our network devices centrally using SNMP regardless if they are mesh or not. I think you may be mixing too many arguments. I may be mixing up typical deployment models using MESH with MESH Technology. It also depends on your definition of MESH. Cisco defines a mesh network as a communications network having two or more paths to any node. I would agree with that definition. How would you define mesh? I admit, I made a generalization of a typical way MESH would be deployed, in my arguements. Deployed at street level, so many short hops were required to get coverage and get around NLOS obstacles, in a dense city environment. That may be true if the mesh didn't have any dedicated backhauls. We using P2MP systems to backhaul our mesh, which allows us to limit the number of hops of any one particular path. A network that made its own intelligent routing decissions, that may not always be the most intelligent compared to the human mind's decissions. Meshs don't have to make their own routing decisions. You can statically route a mesh if you want to. I don't think I will agree that a human is better suited to the job though. But is that really MESH? Technically you could call any multi-path routed network, MESH. I call my network a routed network using triangulation. But I would not call it MESH. But it very well could be considered similar to MESH. Our industry peers use the term mesh in this context, so it appears quite appropriate. What criteria does your network OS sue to deterine routing changes? Measure highest packet loss? measure most amount of available bandwdith? Measure least amount of average bandwidth? Measure shortest path? Lowest latency? Lowest cost ($) transit or transport provider path? And how many can they consider togeather to make the best overall decission? I'd be interested in hearing more about what you are doing with MPLS in your design. MPLS traffic engineering allows you to use any number of combinations of criteria. In fact, Cisco sells whole books on this very subject. Also understand this is a Wireless list, not a fiber list. The design flaws of MESH over fiber (fast packet-loss less links) is a completely different animal with different challenges than MESH in Wireless. I disagree. While there are certainly important differences between fiber and wireless, network architecture wish the communication medium is generally less important. I
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Quoting Tom: What often happens, is technical people make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the technology. Man have you hot the nail on the head! Motorola is a company that gets caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio. It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement from the dealer would be do you realize that 80% of our customer base still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would say They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they will tell the customer what they need or what they will be getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great radios. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all. Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Matt, I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them than are there. I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom and Brian: So very eloquantly said! Do Motorola - and companies like them - a favour: please forward these comments to them. They need to hear this, and will be a better company if they hear and heed it. Linda Linda Pond President Customer Connects Bridging Technology Relationships www.customerconnects.com 613-253-0240 (w) 613-291-2884 (c) BLOG: http://lindaleepond.blogspot.com/ - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Quoting Tom: What often happens, is technical people make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the technology. Man have you hot the nail on the head! Motorola is a company that gets caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio. It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement from the dealer would be do you realize that 80% of our customer base still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would say They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they will tell the customer what they need or what they will be getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great radios. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Your comments couldn't be more appropriate. I'm hearing 3rd hand that Moto just announced on webinar's today that their next firmware release (8.0) will no longer support compatibility with the original Canopy protocol, so original deployed equipment must be replaced. Some unhappy comments appearing on the [Motorola] list. Rich - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Quoting Tom: What often happens, is technical people make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the technology. Man have you hot the nail on the head! Motorola is a company that gets caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio. It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement from the dealer would be do you realize that 80% of our customer base still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would say They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they will tell the customer what they need or what they will be getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great radios. Brian -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom DeReggi wrote: No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have to waste time replicating your research. Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not just making claims, but disclosing why. I recall in an earlier email you making claims without disclosing why. Are we going to debate the debate or mesh? I never suggest that. And Neither am I. But no, I do not own a city wide MESH network. I decided against MESH, which is why my opinion is biased against MESH. I can count the total ISPs on one hand that have completed that task as of today. Maybe two Muni's that had been legally allowed to proceed doing a large public network. So my experience level does not lessen my point of view. Why does the mesh have to be city wide? We haven't nor will we do a city wide mesh. We believe mesh is only appropriate in certain pockets of geography that allow the economics of mesh to exceed that of P2MP. Of course you do. Just like most WISPs do. I can't count how many single unit Mesh system we had sent to evaluate. Its likely you did the same. We don't do single unit mesh evaluations. What's the point? You can't really test a mesh with just a single unit. As a router operating system manufacturer with protocol level coding experience, (but never went to market), we also have a great deal of talent on staff, to investigate the trade offs of various technologies. But you have to understand, that sooner or later a WISP needs to put the science projects aside, and start making sales, and they don't always have time to keep up to date on every latest and greatest daily enhancements to a technology, when they've decided on a different path to follow. I really don't have time to evaluate every manufacturers' Mesh product on a weekly basis to prove right or wrong their latest theories in their field. I am not referring to some science project. We have active mesh deployments existing in the field now. Additionally, we are starting work next week on two more. One is a Tropos-based mesh, while the other is going to be built using some pre-release gear. The later is a mixed use development spanning hundreds of acres. That is the kind of scale we use to test mesh technology. It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments. This is NOT a competition to prove who is the smarter technician and network designer. I do not claim to be Grand Master MESH. But I am more than qualified to carry on intelligent debate on the pros and cons of various routing and wireless technologies. I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin. You have made statements against mesh, but haven't made a single technical argument that was backed up by facts, research, or field experience. I don't disagree with that definition. And technically in the dictionary, if it had to be defined, that could be it. But I feel MESH is more of a mindset than a definition. In practicality and real world, that MESH definition is two broad to cover all the many ways of implementing MESH. That definition does not define why someone would benefit from usingthe technology. I look at MESH as a concept of how to better gain coverage to a large number of people and/or geographical area, when Line-of-sight to a central or common sources are frequently obstructed, which typically requires more radios, installed closer togeather, and a method to manage their relationships, apposed to defining the way nodes communicate. You are overloading the term mesh then. You can't take an accepted industry term and twist it to mean something else. Mesh is a network architecture that is more heavily used in wireline networks than wireless networks yet you want to suggest mesh has something to do with coverage. Each node in a mesh or each basestation in a P2MP system has an associated coverage area. Given a mesh node operating in the same spectrum and power output as a P2MP system you would expect a similar coverage because the coverage provided by the radios in question is a function of spectrum and power not network architecture. Some people believed in John Henry, some believed in the Steam engine. I agree that the ultimately a computer (or technology) has more potential to be better equipped to make those decissions. However, today is not that day yet, and I have more confidence in the engineer (human). Not because the computer isn't capable, but because the engineer has not yet been proven capable to program the computer to be more capable. Again I disagree. There are a number of large networks where a piece of software is used to configure network devices instead of humans configuring the devices directly. The same decisions are made by humans in either case, but in the former case the software can detect configuration issues before they are applied. Humans
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Brad, I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that. Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with Cell/Sector models more effectively. As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that task. I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove that, but there is no reason for me to. Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all. Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Matt, I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them than are there. I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Matt, I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin. I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being out thought, and I don't mind being beat. I sometimes even purposely hypothetically support the minority side, to spark intelligent debate on the other side. But I do not like being insulted. Its comments like yours above that I find insulting. I have no interest in debating further with you on this topic at this time. I got better things to do. but haven't made a single technical argument that was backed up by facts, research, or field experience. I'm not sure that you have either. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with your alternate path. What is so terrible about that? Lonnie On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that. Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with Cell/Sector models more effectively. As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that task. I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove that, but there is no reason for me to. Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all. Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Matt, I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them than are there. I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
The primary challenge from my experience is LOS issues on the link side. You can solve this by deploying more nodes or more injection points according to design and budget. The new 900 Mhz cards look interesting to link those few out of the way nodes. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.15.0 - Release Date: 2/1/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Lonnie, when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post? M Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I am not disputing that at all. What I was saying that mesh is a routing mechanism and as such is used on the backhaul and microcell to tie them together. As such it is far superior to a backhaul and microcell approach without mesh routing. That is all I was trying to say. Lonnie On 2/23/06, chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The primary challenge from my experience is LOS issues on the link side. You can solve this by deploying more nodes or more injection points according to design and budget. The new 900 Mhz cards look interesting to link those few out of the way nodes. chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.15.0 - Release Date: 2/1/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get tweaks and add-ons. We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We felt it was ready for prime time. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie, when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post? M Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without killing every other in town at the same time. routing... Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized management and configuration, when scaling large projects. When end users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the path to backbone. Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment. The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity. Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super cell is unable to reach the clientel. But I'd argue many samll repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be engineered into every site. When paths from point A to point B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest number of hops, with most direct solid links. Just my opinion. We'll see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many future case studies to come. Its the Mesh companies that are the ones pushing it,and in their eye. The reason has to do with assets not technology. Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the street poles. Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. Its building management companies and owners that control the expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell. Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick progress. There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water towers, if they are strategically located. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Come down and visit some of our mesh networks if you'd like. Mesh may be a over-hyped buzzword not unlike WiMAX, but that doesn't mean the technology is not without merit. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. No you can't. P2P and P2MP systems are static layer 2 and layer 3 architectures where as a mesh system can be dynamic at both layer 2 and layer 3. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. Functionally, both systems deliver data, but flexibility is higher with mesh, scalability could be better or worse depending on the network, and stability is almost never a function of architecture. With all the above being stated, mesh is easy to achieve and hard to get right. Don't even bother with WDS or other poor man's mesh. If you can't afford to do mesh right, don't; stick with P2MP. Folks can argue the multiple radio issue as much as they want in regard to mesh and Tropos with its single radio nodes continue to run circles around everyone else. We have deployed Tropos and while we don't like certain aspects about them, I can tell you without a doubt that they are the most well engineered mesh nodes I have ever encountered. With that being said, we are now deploying multiple radio mesh nodes because the requirements of our project demand them. However, the amount of engineering that goes into making a multiple radio mesh work rivals and some would say exceeds that of a cellular network. In short, mesh sounds good in theory, mesh is easy to create technically, but in practice, in the field, mesh is hard to get right unless you have a product like Tropos that does it all for you. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom DeReggi wrote: No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without killing every other in town at the same time. Mesh doesn't have to add hops where they aren't needed or wanted. Further, there is no inherent added latency for a mesh network. Certainly hops and TDM add latency, but that is the case with all network architectures. Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized management and configuration, when scaling large projects. When end users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the path to backbone. Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment. Unless we are talking best effort, all customers should have their own VLAN and therefore any network will have an upper limit on its size without routers. Clearly some combination of layer 2 and layer 3 is the right way to go for even a medium size network. The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity. I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement. Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super cell is unable to reach the clientel. But I'd argue many samll repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be engineered into every site. When paths from point A to point B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest number of hops, with most direct solid links. Just my opinion. We'll see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many future case studies to come. Its the Mesh companies that are the ones pushing it,and in their eye. The reason has to do with assets not technology. Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the street poles. Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. Its building management companies and owners that control the expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell. I think you may be mixing too many arguments. We are using a fully meshed MPLS network for our fiber backbone. Our choice of a mesh architecture for our fiber backbone has nothing to do with client reachability, politics, vendor's opinions, or anything else outside of practical requirements. Our network devices can and do make routing decisions on the fly that result in better throughput, lower latency, and better QoS than traditional star and ring architectures can achieve. Understand that every major ISP is now either running a fully meshed MPLS network or has plans to migrate to one. Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick progress. There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water towers, if they are strategically located. I don't think Muni choices whatever they are should have anything to do with an technical discussion regarding the merits of mesh as a network architecture. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
good deal! do you have info on the tech specs of the system in the website? thanks. Mario Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get tweaks and add-ons. We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We felt it was ready for prime time. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie, when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post? M Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
No, but I posted a link to the manuals on the Support Forums. We use OLSR and you can get the manuals, etc yourself. http://www.olsr.org/ What specs do you need? This auto routes and is not limited to 2 layer like OSPF. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good deal! do you have info on the tech specs of the system in the website? thanks. Mario Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get tweaks and add-ons. We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We felt it was ready for prime time. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie, when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post? M Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
you jsut gotta pick your software well. OK. What do you pick, and why? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Tom DeReggi wrote: No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without killing every other in town at the same time. QoS is easy with mesh, you jsut gotta pick your software well. Its very easy to identify where QoS is at. Self interferance is also very easy to avoid (no 400mw cards on 10db omnis ok? thats a no no) routing... Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized management and configuration, when scaling large projects. When end users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the path to backbone. Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment. RIP is just plain evil to use unless its for a end use LAN only. OSPF only works for mesh when your urnning 3+ radios/node. There is nothing wrong with your client hardware helping with routes as long as you control the hardware. Central control is nice and works well. So does micro managing when you do it in centralized way (central server, all nodes request updated info every X hours or its pushed when a change is made) The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity. Define better and what central/non centralized configuration setups you are comparing. Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super cell is unable to reach the clientel. But I'd argue many samll repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be engineered into every site. When paths from point A to point B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest number of hops, with most direct solid links. Just my opinion. We'll see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many future case studies to come. Its the Mesh companies that are the ones pushing it,and in their eye. The reason has to do with assets not technology. Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the street poles. Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. Its building management companies and owners that control the expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell. Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick progress. There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water towers, if they are strategically located. Mesh also works from non pole setups. Muni pole setups should use multi radio overlapping stars for the mesh, not single radio mesh. Mesh can have QoS its not a open buffet. Anyone deploying in the ISM/UNII bands is a best effort service. 3650 and licensed is the way out of best effort land. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve Lonnie just released a beta mesh upgrade for star-os v3 today. Or he is going to according to another list posting. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Hi Jack, This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back. George Jack Unger wrote: Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
George, I haven't seen his description but I'm glad to hear he's on the right track. Do you recall a link to his information? Thanks, jack George wrote: Hi Jack, This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back. George Jack Unger wrote: Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
This is from a post I made in the Summer. It runs very nicely on out 4 radio WAR boards. Pretty sweet actually. Lonnie * I think you are basing your dislike on standard AdHoc mesh. Remember I too have come out and said it is not worth our time. We have some ideas and we will build something similar to OSPF but more intelligent and proactive about routes. We will make use of multiple radios and even Ethernet feeds. There is no reason that we cannot do a 5.x GHz mesh feeding some 2.4 GHz microcells. I see no reason to have a low performance system and we are shooting for 20 to 30 mbps at each node. It will not ruin it for anybody and kill make a KA network. It will be self healing so that any failure is simply routed around. Like OSPF but with steroids and more knowledge of the network. On 2/22/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George, I haven't seen his description but I'm glad to hear he's on the right track. Do you recall a link to his information? Thanks, jack George wrote: Hi Jack, This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back. George Jack Unger wrote: Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where we really, really need it. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
That has been our whole focus. The first part of the puzzle was the 4 port WAR boards. It is so easy to deploy a repeater and one or more micro cells if they all come in one box and you simply attach antennas. Then we developed the 5 and 10 MHz channel widths. At 5 MHz width, for instance, you have 11 channels of non overlapping bandwidth in the very crowded 2.4 GHz allotment. 5.x GHz gets the same 4X the number of channels. Each 5 MHz radio can still deliver almost 7 mbps. The last piece of the puzzle was the mesh routing. RIPv2 makes a large network easy to maintain, but it gets fooled easily and cross links confuse it greatly. OSPF is better but is more difficult to set up and you have to design your network as a 2 layer structure, something that any larger network quickly exceeds. Mesh loves cross links and they provide a self healing quality. Take a link away and the loss is detected and routed around. It is easy to setup and just works. All you really have to enter are the device names and the IP segments you want announced. So, we are nearing the ideal platform - multiple radios, efficient bandwidth use and superb routing to make use of all of those links. This is what we have all been dreaming about for years, and it is upon us. This is the next generation of wireless people. Lonnie On 2/22/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance. 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft dish), and avoid the interference headaches. There is now a HUGE range of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January. Design mesh networks to utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz. In a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively small panel antennas. Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum supported by their laptops. I hope to see the industry smart enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was allocated for. One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum and only use it when needed. It is in shortage most compared to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is. Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal. Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and lower power. 5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied RF. Design it into your MESH design. If you can't transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density. Every single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection. 5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for super cell design. But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell. Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is using. The mesh provider has options. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater. jack ISPlists wrote: Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. Thanks, Steve -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True
