Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The reseller cost that you see isn't that far off of what street WISP pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to get in the WISP game -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the bigger guys because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The reseller cost that you see isn't that far off of what street WISP pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to get in the WISP game -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the bigger guys because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Is there a way to add a rule to the mail server that bounces messages with OFFLIST in the title? Brian Charles Wu (CTI) wrote: Ugh...the problem is list rules -- there are some mailing lists when I click reply, it goes back straight to the sender, and need to click reply-all to get to everyone, and others where clicking reply gets me back on the list (and I need to go change to "to" topic) I should probably just go to bed instead of posting at 2 AM -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:59 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The "reseller" cost that you see isn't that far off of what "street WISP" pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to "get in the WISP game" -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the "bigger guys" because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen -
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
No, I don't have a target for Motorola Canopy, we sell it, and it represents less than 3% of our total sales volume. Having those stock levels of various items and sales volumes is rather easy though, and we have maintained them after our first year with steady growth. We're mostly MikroTik/UBNT/Vecima/ARC/PAC/Teletronics, but we do sell quite a few other products. We just focus on our core products which we are already direct on. My point was that there are many wisps out there claiming a certain price, but really never reach those volumes or ascertain those pricing levels. I know of a WISP in Texas who had a tech claiming $160 per CPE pricing, then when I approached their purchasing department for ancillary products, they were paying 1% over my cost, through a deal with Motorola, far from $160 per CPE. They currently have about 40k subscribers and add between 600-1k per month. I've been in this league almost two years...and yet I haven't been in this market as long as you, I do know and understand the game. Having been to multiple distributors like the ones you mentioned, our inventory levels are close to similar in comparison. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 4:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The reseller cost that you see isn't that far off of what street WISP pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to get in the WISP game -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the bigger guys because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Uh oh...we've started a holy war... ducking Here's my philosophy these days...*NOTHING* works perfectly, but *ANYTHING* can be made to work - if there's will (and a little bit of ingenuity and duct tape), there's a way =) That being said, there's a case to be made, especially when we're talking scale here, when the wizard of oz can no longer run everything, but crews of dumb minions have taken over, that a case for paying a premium on hardware can be made due to the labor cost savings for stuff that just works out of the box vs. stuff that requires some tweaks and tribal knowledge to make work properly Heck, we paid a premium and converted our infrastructure to Windows and Cisco b/c the benefit of hiring someone who had certs and could be productive in 2 weeks of hiring was worth the extra premium than trying to wait train a new guy for 6-9 months... My 2 cents On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding Thoughts? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
OK, what is AF09? So I'm just a dumb country boy. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:li...@manageisp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 04:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Travis,Ok, I'm game.First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT. Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem.When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work.BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsenvistabeam.comTravis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.1 1... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network. You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 n etwork. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems. Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology.__ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
AF 101 http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Animal_Farm AF09 http://www.wbmfg.com/animalfarm -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ron Wallace Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... OK, what is AF09? So I'm just a dumb country boy. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)270-2410 e-mail: rwall...@newgenet.net rwall...@tigernet.bz -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:li...@manageisp.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 04:44 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Travis,Ok, I'm game.First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT. Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem.When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work.BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsenvistabeam.comTravis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.1 1... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network. You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 n etwork. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems. Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology.__ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less than $600 each. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
If you're using nstreme for point to multipoint OR wds be sure you're running a very very recent version of ROS! Nstreme used to not work well at all on APs with 10-20+ customers. I believe the new wireless package is included as of 3.16. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Travis Johnson t...@ida.net wrote: Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less than $600 each. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsenvistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network.
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Yum, GPS sync, I wish everyone did that. Especially MikroTik! -Cameron -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And, with the last promo that Motorola did, I purchased 24 APs' for less than $600 each. :) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Travis, Ok, I'm game. First of all, a plain 802.11g wireless AP should be thrown in the junk pile and replaced with StarOS or MT.Depending on the quality of signal and modulation rates from the majority of the users, I would have also removed some of the higher mods to reduce rate shifts. And then, I would have set up bandwidth profiles for each user to something in the 1meg down/512K up range. That would pretty much fix the bandwidth and latency problem. When I do your upload test, I don't have the same problems. I do bandwidth control in the access point, and with upload rates set to half of the download rates, I have no problem putting 50 to 75 users on one AP and still provide good download speeds (1meg/2meg/4meg packages) with decent latency (20-40ms latency at peaks) and no packet loss. That is also with quite a few VOIP users who would be howling if the service didn't work. BTW, Canopy radios at $160 are double the cost of a NanoStation. Canopy with a reflector is 3x the cost of a Bullet5 and 26db grid. StarOS APs are at least 1/4th the cost of a comparable Canopy AP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Last time I looked there where no commonly used devices for laptop that do polling. For internal public network to serve pda's, laptops etc your only option is WiFi and it is do able to support a lot of those users just have to design it right. Each unit has it purpose and place canopy et al right now do not have a position in the laptop market. Would be funny to see a conference where people walk around with canopy units attached to their laptops for internet access and searching for power outlets to power them. Lol. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:19:18 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST
Maybe it's all that skiing getting to him. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: 3-dB Networks wi...@3-db.net Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:58 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST This seems to be happening a lot lately :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Charles Wu (CTI) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... - OFFLIST Chuck, Just a word of friendly advice The Canopy / WISP resale world is a competitive and brutal space -- if your plan is to target WISPs, I'd recommend that you save the trouble and find another vertical market or product The reseller cost that you see isn't that far off of what street WISP pricing is for anyone who's deploying in any decent quantity -- that's just the nature of the business You need a minimum of $5 million / year in volume and probably close to $500k in stock to get in the WISP game -- but at this point in the game, you're in a chicken egg situation, since I'm not quite sure how you'd build up that volume, given that (1) most WISPs already have pre-existing relationships with their current suppliers, and inertia is an extremely hard thing to break (2) any new WISP you spend the time to get going that results in any decent volume will probably get swiped by the bigger guys because it ultimately all boils down to price and financing -- and they have the volume and pricing advantage to take you out of the market There's a reason why Streakwave went back to focus on Mikrotik / Ubiquiti 2 years ago Irregardless, whether or not you choose to listen to my advice, Welcome to the big leagues =) -Charles P.S. -- we need to sync up again sometime and talk about how IP Pay can save you $$$ -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a typical example of 802.11 not scaling. If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy requires. Your turn. :^) Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS sync and timing is pretty cool. I can put as many AP's as I want on a tower, and all over everywhere, and I don't have to worry about stepping on myself. So each AP uses 25mhz, but I can get 200+ subs on each AP, and I can deliver 7-10ms latency all the time, to every single user. And,
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Kaboom - There is Wireless shrapnel is everywhere. -Cam -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a typical example of 802.11 not scaling. If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy requires. Your turn. :^) Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you have to have at least 20mhz between AP's or they cause interference. So, we now have some towers with 6 Mikrotik AP's, but instead of using 60mhz of spectrum, we are using more like 180mhz of spectrum. Only having been in the Canopy game for less than a month, I can tell you so far having GPS
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
1...2...5 Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Cameron Kilton c...@midcoast.com wrote: Kaboom - There is Wireless shrapnel is everywhere. -Cam -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a typical example of 802.11 not scaling. If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to do when deployed in this fashion. When I have customers that need to make the move beyond what our system is capable of, I'm going to spend the money on 3.65 WiMax gear. Even without a promo, I could put up 24 sectors of StarOS for less than $300 each. Or I could deploy 12 sectors and 12 backhauls. Or I could deploy 12 sectors, 12 backhauls and 3 full duplex links. And that includes real, external antennas and not the little crappy patch antennas inside of the Canopy case. And I have open source tools to manage it, not this BAM or PRIZM or whatever crazy stuff that Canopy requires. Your turn. :^) Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, This was Animal Farm... they had a 300Mbps link off their fiber backbone into this facility. Why would you cap people at 1Mbps? The issue is without polling, there is no way to control usage in a fair, equal manner. Let me explain what I have found in the last year. We did all kinds of testing with Mikrotik, Nanostations, OSBridge, StarOS, etc. We decided to deploy Mikrotik and use their Nstreme protocol to provide a consistant, polling based solution using off-the-shelf components. We have about 60 AP's deployed. We have found that even with polling and QoS on every single user, the system starts to have issues above 50 users. So we figured no problem, just put up more AP's on the same towers. Even while using only 10mhz channel sizes, you
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Matt, Yes, we are offering symmetrical speeds (1meg x 1meg, etc.), so our testing was based on that. So I would agree if you were not doing that, you can probably get 75 users (at a very maximum) on an 802.11 AP. However, I still believe there are other issues with plain 802.11 that does not have any type of polling... such as having a customer with a -50 signal while everyone else has a -75 signal. Regardless of QoS or any other setting, that -50 customer is going to get priority over anyone else on that AP. I would be curious what happens on an AP if that one customer were to start a very high pps upload using all of their allocated bandwidth? All of our tests used the AP as the bandwidth controller. There were still substantial issues when a customer started an upload. Here's where the numbers get interesting a StarOS AP is $300, but I can do a Canopy AP for $600 (and I can put the same antenna on it that you are putting on the StarOS system, and we can both be in violation of the FCC guidelines)... but I can put up to 200 customers with no impact on latency. So even if we figure 100 customers on the Canopy AP, it's the same cost as the StarOS AP. And for us, the bigger issue was being able to co-locate many AP's on the same tower. With Canopy, I could technically put 24 AP's on the same tower (even right on top of each other) and everything would still work. ;) As for management, we wrote two PHP scripts (total time of about 2-3 hours) that provide full management of all our Canopy AP's and SM's. We use JFFNMS to gather all the stats automatically (we don't have to add each SM, we only add the AP one time and it grabs everything about every SM connected including packets, traffic, signal, jitter, etc). All of this is open source, and I will probably post the scripts sometime in the near future. So now anyone with proper access can do any support or maintenance necessary all from a web browser... no PuTTy or whatever that crazy stuff is that StarOS requires... ;) Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Preparing to launch the Holy War Hand Grenade.:^) On the AF09 wireless, I am just following the terms you gave me as a "typical example of 802.11 not scaling". If there is only one access point for 50 users, then yes - cap it at 1Mbps. How much do temporary users need? If they needed 10meg, I would have deployed three 802.11b/g APs on different channels with different ESSIDs, and an 802.11a AP. A single X4000 board with StarOS and four omni antennas would have handled that just fine while delivering 5meg or so per client. But your real world example was a single AP. If someone wants to bottleneck a 300Mbps link with a single AP and then point out how bad that single AP performs, that is just bad network design and you can't hold 802.11 to blame for the problem. As far as polling goes, it just has not proven to be necessary to provide a quality level of service in many cases, including 99.9% of my customers. Note that I did not say ALL cases, as there are situations where polling does make sense - especially when you get beyond the 50-75 user per sector mark. I just haven't had any use for it because the extra costs of deployment did not justify the minimal benefits since nearly all of my APs are below the 50-75 users per sector range. I am familiar with the testing that you did with the 802.11 gear, but something just doesn't add up in your results, because my results are way different. Not knowing details, I'm going to make the assumption that you were using symmetrical bandwidth profiles (1meg up/1meg down), full speed with no bursting, and that your bandwidth control was being done at some point behind the access point. To get a higher number of users on an 802.11 AP, the upload rates need to be limited. The key is picking the tradeoff that works best. With symmetrical speeds and multimegabit packages, 20-30 users per AP is probably all you are going to get. With asymmetrical bandwidth packages, the available duty cycles for delivering data to customers are maximized and the latency issues you mentioned are mimimized. Bursting is another key feature to have available on 802.11 networks, since it gets the short data requests delivered faster. Bursting enabled us to double the number of users on an AP without issues. Having the bandwidth control on the AP, and not a device somewhere behind it - also seems to help considerably, and minimizes the chances of issues coming up between the wireless link and the bandwidth controller. In my tests, I can start simultaneous uploads or downloads on multiple CPE units on a loaded AP and still maintain decent latency (jumps from 2ms to 20-25ms) with no packet loss. YMMV, but that is what I see on my system, deployed in this manner. I'm glad that Canopy works for you and the others that use it. I have no use for it whatsoever because the 802.11 gear does what it needs to
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
We like gray. If you have to have a single color, it is the least obtrusive, at least to our tastes. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Charles Wu (CTI) c...@cticonnect.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Uh oh...we've started a holy war... ducking Here's my philosophy these days...*NOTHING* works perfectly, but *ANYTHING* can be made to work - if there's will (and a little bit of ingenuity and duct tape), there's a way =) That being said, there's a case to be made, especially when we're talking scale here, when the wizard of oz can no longer run everything, but crews of dumb minions have taken over, that a case for paying a premium on hardware can be made due to the labor cost savings for stuff that just works out of the box vs. stuff that requires some tweaks and tribal knowledge to make work properly Heck, we paid a premium and converted our infrastructure to Windows and Cisco b/c the benefit of hiring someone who had certs and could be productive in 2 weeks of hiring was worth the extra premium than trying to wait train a new guy for 6-9 months... My 2 cents On another topic, I've been looking at Cat-5 cable for CPE installs, and am trying to figure out what color everyone likes best Talking about the cheap, outdoor rated unshielded Cat-5e Me personally, I would have thought black, but I'm finding many seem to prefer white/beige b/c it blends in better with vinyl siding Thoughts? -Charles -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
But for micropops it sure makes sense. Screw it into the bottom of an omni and presto! __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 7:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better "real world" experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed insignificant difference between my Star-OS/WAR1 combo and the Bullet. The AP shows that the Bullet has active compression and fast frames that functions with my star-os access point. I have not tried the narrower channels to see if they're compatible with my star-os AP's. They have been certified with up to 30 db antennas. Summary... 1 bullet5, 1 pacwireless 25 db grid w/pigtail, 1 universal mount = very cheap 5 ghz cpe - about $130 - 140 complete. Even nicer??? The bullet slides down INTO the universal mount pipe, becoming invisible after you mount and aim it. Just FYI... The Bullet does NAT and has a DHCP server built in. No need for a router, allows you to have a fully routed network. Opinion I like them. insert witty tagline here WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... I deployed my first Bullet5 today. Not the high power, but the standard. throughput testing showed
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Hi, I can tell you right now I have a written quote from a distributor/reseller for quantity 200 radios at less than $200 each. The other company I was speaking about is doing 1,000 installs per month. $160 per radio is the number I have heard (and seems reasonable based on that quantity compared to my pricing at 200 radios). Travis Microserv Chuck Hogg wrote: The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review...
Not much will get accomplished on this list...there are ways, but that's for members. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC cprof...@cv-access.com Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... The cheapest I have ever seen large bulk distributor pricing with buyback money is a little over $200 per SM except 900Mhz. Now, if you are looking at the Lite version SM's they certainly can be had for cheaper. All these WISPs claiming cheaper price is not telling the truth. Even Motorola disputes the price when questioned (yes I am a distributor of Motorola products too). Ask that WISP to buy 100 packs from them for me, I'll pay a 10% premium! Also, I agree with both of you here. Having both 900MHz Trango and 2.4Ghz MikroTik, the Trango performs very impressively with 50 clients per AP. I have a few AP's that are currently 100+ and they don't drop packets, and the latency is great in comparison. However, properly maintained 802.11 networks do pretty well also, but I don't see them outperforming what Trango does on clients per AP level. Regards, Chuck Hogg Avolutia, LLC 502-722-9292 ch...@avolutia.com http://www.avolutia.com http://www.shelbybb.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Bullet5 review... Matt, I know we have already discussed this several times, and I'm not sure we need to do it again... but maybe you could explain how you could have setup a plain 802.11g wireless AP so that each client (using all different kinds of wireless adapters) could have gotten equal bandwidth and latency at AF09? And, once again, I have done test after test after test using 802.11 stuff... and every single time (using Mikrotik without Nstreme, using StarOS, using OSBridge and using Nanostations) if we setup an AP and we connect two clients with laptops and start a continuous upload, the other client is basically dead in the water. Even if we limit the upload to 2Mbps or 3Mbps, when that client starts the upload, the other client has very high latency, very bad download speeds, etc. As for price on Canopy vs. 802.11... things are not always as they seem. I know of a large Canopy operator that is buying radios for $160 each. ;) And, we have Trango AP's that only deliver 5Mbps total with 128 clients and we deliver 4ms latency to every single client. Travis Microserv Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: Sorry Travis, but you are dead wrong about 802.11 not being able to scale beyond 20 users, especially with 802.11a. I explained how it can be done to you before and I have consulting clients with 10,000 plus users on their 802.11 based networks scaling right up to the same size as any Canopy or Trango network.You might not be able to get to 150 subs per AP, but you can certainly hit 50-75 per sector and offer service that is damn close and a far sight cheaper than what Canopy will do. I would take a StarOS a/b/g network over a Canopy system every day of the week. As far as problems at AF09 - that is what you get when Canopy guys are running an 802.11 network. If I was running it with the proven equipment and deployment methods that many of us use on 802.11 networks, there would not have been any such problems.Just because the AF09 guys couldn't figure it out (or more likely didn't bother to try) doesn't mean that it can't be done right. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Travis Johnson wrote: The problem will be that they are still plain 802.11 technology. There is no polling or ARQ or FEC or anything else that makes technology like Trango, Canopy and others work so well. We pulled all of our 802.11 stuff down over 5 years ago. It does NOT scale. You will never get an AP with reliable, consistent service with more than 20 users. In fact, I think we witnessed this at AF09. Everyone connected to the same AP (48 I think was the count) and we continually got disconnected and the speeds and latency were terrible. Could there be a better real world experience than that? :) Travis Microserv Jerry Richardson wrote: All I can do is shake my head. Ubiquity seems to have acquired some Area51 technology. __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: wireless-boun
