Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reed Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
This stuff is spooled because it is too fat and stiff to stuff into the box and think it will come out nicely. I have fewer snags, etc., with the spooled wire than the other boxes we use. On 1/24/2014 7:41 AM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote: Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon *From:* Scott Reed mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7029 - Release Date: 01/23/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ?
Anyone has any experiece with products for this application? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reedmailto:sr...@nwwnet.net Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General Listmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailboxhttps://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
You can get it either way, shielded or not. Compare them here:https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon *From:*Scott Reed mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net *Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Great. Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 9:49 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box You can get it either way, shielded or not. Compare them here: https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reedmailto:sr...@nwwnet.net Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General Listmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option — Sent from Mailboxhttps://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ?
Gino, Can you be more specific? I came from a regional hospital chain, and they did everything from their downtown Data Center, and all hospitals had gig connectivity. Even the bar-code readers had serial to Ethernet extenders, so even the serial scanners were IP to the servers. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Anyone has any experiece with products for this application? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ?
Looking for a way for remote Radiology Dr can use low BW Internet connections (5-10 Mbps) for remote PACS reading, Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.commailto:g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Gino, Can you be more specific? I came from a regional hospital chain, and they did everything from their downtown Data Center, and all hospitals had gig connectivity. Even the bar-code readers had serial to Ethernet extenders, so even the serial scanners were IP to the servers. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Anyone has any experiece with products for this application? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
No, it is not. (Which means the warranty is VOID for his CPEs...) Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 08:43 AM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I'm addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there's a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the rabbit pull mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon *From:*Scott Reed mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net *Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option --- Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
INTERESTING! I didn't know shireen made a shielded version. That's one reason we've only used the d-gel for very certain things. It's not listed on our primary vendor's site (streakwave). Thanks for the find/info! Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 08:48 AM, Scott Reed wrote: You can get it either way, shielded or not. Compare them here:https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I'm addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there's a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the rabbit pull mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon *From:*Scott Reed mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net *Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option --- Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.com mailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net http://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Here is the product I ordered after being pointed there by Scott. [https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/50x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/d/c/dc-1041_2.gif] Outdoor CAT5e FTP Shielded - Gel Filled - Outer Jacket - 1000ft Spool DC-1041 Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box INTERESTING! I didn't know shireen made a shielded version. That's one reason we've only used the d-gel for very certain things. It's not listed on our primary vendor's site (streakwave). Thanks for the find/info! Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 08:48 AM, Scott Reed wrote: You can get it either way, shielded or not. Compare them here: https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: Marlon, Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for it? Thanks, Kevin From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orgmailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I'm addicted. Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there's a problem that allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the rabbit pull mechanism that my indoor cable uses. marlon From: Scott Reedmailto:sr...@nwwnet.net Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM To: WISPA General Listmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for towers and installs so there is that option - Sent from Mailboxhttps://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds j...@spitwspots.commailto:j...@spitwspots.com wrote: UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go arounds thanks heith ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comhttp://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.nethttp://www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.orgmailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
Toughcable all the way. The greatest products come from people who learn from big mistakes ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Greenpacket Ethernet Speed Setting
Does anyone know if or how I can force a Greenpacket OX-350i to run at 10/Full? We swapped a customer from UBNT to wimax on a long cable run and we need to force it to 10 megs. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Greenpacket Ethernet Speed Setting
Have you tried setting this up with snmp? I have some of these out in the field and have fortunately not encountered this problem. It might be worth a shot to look through the mibs to see what can be accomplished. Mark Spring Systems Analyst New Knoxville Telephone Company 301 W. South St. New Knoxville, OH 45871 419.753.5000 This message and the file(s) attached are confidential and proprietary information of NKTelco for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, distribution, disclosure, copying, use, or dissemination, either whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Do not transmit these documents, in any form, to any third party without the expressed written permission of NKTelco. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com wrote: Does anyone know if or how I can force a Greenpacket OX-350i to run at 10/Full? We swapped a customer from UBNT to wimax on a long cable run and we need to force it to 10 megs. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] remote employees
We have used r admin for years one time charge for server software for computer remote free On Jan 23, 2014 9:56 AM, James Howard ja...@litewire.net wrote: We have a somewhat similar situation. One of our CSRs moved to Texas (actually moved back since was originally from Texas) last year. We cover our after-hours and weekend support through a rotating schedule of all employees who want to participate in it (on-call is paid separate from “work” pay). We didn’t keep her as an employee when she moved but wrote a contract with her to continue to cover the after-hour shifts that she was covering before she moved. We pay her a set rate per shift whether she gets any calls or not (just like we do with our employees who cover any of the after-hour shifts). We give her VPN access to our systems but she has to provide her own equipment to connect and her own phone line to call customers. Just make sure that if you make them a “contractor” that they actually fit under that definition and it doesn’t come back to bite you later on. Either way (employee vs contractor) you still have no guarantee that the person isn’t going to sit and play games all day do you? Do you have that guarantee when he was sitting at your office? If I was having a person answer live calls (we just have her do call backs for after-hours support) I would provide a VoIP phone connected to our asterisk PBX though. James Howard LiteWire Internet Services, Inc. *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *heith petersen *Sent:* Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:27 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* [WISPA] remote employees I have a tech who does real light field work, who mostly works at a desk in my office. He usually handles the customer BS, like phone tech support above what we let our held desk handle, as well as radio configuration and updates and support to my field techs. Due to recent personal issues he is moving 4 hours away. We figure, since he doesn’t have a job yet and can get good high speed service, we might try to do a gig with us remotely. I would tunnel him into the net, access to billing, and a VoIP phone to our system, basically use him just like I do now, just no physical presence. Anyone else doing this or have past experience with this? If so, was it positive or total nightmare? We are trying to figure out how to base compensation. Right now he is hourly, I can see time tracking could be a pain. In reality he could just sit there and play solitaire all day if I don’t have any calls for him or any network upgrades. Anyways I appreciate your thoughts. I lean on him pretty hard to take care of BS that I shouldn’t have to deal with. Without him I see some pretty long days ahead. And I cant afford to keep a field tech in the office, though I have a guy that would rather sit on ass and talk to customers as opposed to doing field work. thanks heith -- *Total Control Panel* Login https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net To: ja...@litewire.nethttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993domain=litewire.net From: wireless-boun...@wispa.orghttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=1870493402domain=litewire.net Message Score: 1 High (60): Pass My Spam Blocking Level: High Medium (75): Pass Low (90): Pass Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2bl-sender-address=1rID=242260993aID=1870493402domain=litewire.netthis sender / Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2ent=1bl-sender-address=1rID=242260993aID=1870493402domain=litewire.netthis sender enterprise-wide Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2bl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=1870493402domain=litewire.net wispa.org / Blockhttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=2ent=1bl-sender-domain=1rID=242260993aID=1870493402domain=litewire.net wispa.org enterprise-wide *This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.* ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
The new CCRs can do everything you need. And limiting 100Mbps or 200Mbps customers is no problem. We have them running BGP, OSPF, MPLS, PPPoE, firewalls, queues, etc. and they just hum along without any performance issues. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
It sounds like his question is more geared toward very high bandwidth applications core routing for a multigigabit network, or datacenter type operations. Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 12:56 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: The new CCRs can do everything you need. And limiting 100Mbps or 200Mbps customers is no problem. We have them running BGP, OSPF, MPLS, PPPoE, firewalls, queues, etc. and they just hum along without any performance issues. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 tel:301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
FYI.. the current ROS (6.x) does have limitations on most processes being single threaded. Supposed to get fixed i.e. become multi threaded in the near future. Additionally each port has 1 core dedicated to it.. Which under certain circumstances is a good thing, and not so good under other circumstances. CCR are a great product, a bit in their early cycle... but none the less, a great addition to the MT product line. X86 based MT are not obsolete or dead because of the CCR's. and are stable, viable and in some cases better performing... So take your pick ! Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:53:22 PM Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
Not sure if this is still the case, but I remember people saying BGP is limited to a single core. Depending on the number of peers, this could definitely cause some convergence issues. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:59 PM To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core It sounds like his question is more geared toward very high bandwidth applications core routing for a multigigabit network, or datacenter type operations. Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] ePMP
What ranges have people been seeing with the ePMP equipment and subscriber reflector while still getting full modulation? -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ?
We're very familiar with PACS. Not sure what if anything you need to do unless the network is congested. Typically the remote user will either have a pptp or ipsec tunnel back to the server/network. The bandwidth the remote user has available to them (at home, hotel etc.) will obviously vary depending on what they are using. The images will simply move faster with higher bandwidth connections and slower with lower bandwidth connections. Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 12:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Looking for a way for remote Radiology Dr can use low BW Internet connections (5-10 Mbps) for remote PACS reading, Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eric Rogers Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Gino, Can you be more specific? I came from a regional hospital chain, and they did everything from their downtown Data Center, and all hospitals had gig connectivity. Even the bar-code readers had serial to Ethernet extenders, so even the serial scanners were IP to the servers. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Anyone has any experiece with products for this application? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ?
Take a look at Riverbed steelhead and their software/appliances. They are very open to loaning you equipment for weeks on end for testing. The setup is so simple it is not even funny. http://www.riverbed.com/products-solutions/products/wan-optimization-steelhead/ ryan On 1/24/14 2:46 PM, Brad Belton wrote: We're very familiar with PACS. Not sure what if anything you need to do unless the network is congested. Typically the remote user will either have a pptp or ipsec tunnel back to the server/network. The bandwidth the remote user has available to them (at home, hotel etc.) will obviously vary depending on what they are using. The images will simply move faster with higher bandwidth connections and slower with lower bandwidth connections. Brad *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 12:21 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Looking for a way for remote Radiology Dr can use low BW Internet connections (5-10 Mbps) for remote PACS reading, Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric Rogers *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 1:58 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Gino, Can you be more specific? I came from a regional hospital chain, and they did everything from their downtown Data Center, and all hospitals had gig connectivity. Even the bar-code readers had serial to Ethernet extenders, so even the serial scanners were IP to the servers. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 11:16 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* [WISPA] WAN Optimization products for Medical Imaging / Radiology ? Anyone has any experiece with products for this application? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Sam, Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor. That is good to learn. Eric, Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is single core, if it can use a unique core. My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core. Faisal, A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to handle the load of other processes. Paul, Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR. Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be seen. In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to spread out the load. Last Question: Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a router port can push the full GB versus say 50%. It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber infrastructure prematurely. Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
I just ran a test across an AirFiber link with 384 byte packets. The interface shows it passing about 650Mbps going from an i7 x86 to a CCR with existing Internet traffic. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.netwrote: Sam, Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor. That is good to learn. Eric, Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is single core, if it can use a unique core. My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core. Faisal, A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to handle the load of other processes. Paul, Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR. Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be seen. In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to spread out the load. Last Question: Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a router port can push the full GB versus say 50%. It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber infrastructure prematurely. Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - *From:* Sam Tetherow tethe...@shwisp.net *To:* WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM *Subject:* [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Which is pretty close to the limit for an AirFiber, based on our earlier testing w/ small-ish packets. Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: On 01/24/2014 05:12 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: I just ran a test across an AirFiber link with 384 byte packets. The interface shows it passing about 650Mbps going from an i7 x86 to a CCR with existing Internet traffic. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: Sam, Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor. That is good to learn. Eric, Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is single core, if it can use a unique core. My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core. Faisal, A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to handle the load of other processes. Paul, Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR. Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be seen. In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to spread out the load. Last Question: Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a router port can push the full GB versus say 50%. It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber infrastructure prematurely. Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - *From:* Sam Tetherow mailto:tethe...@shwisp.net *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM *Subject:* [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90%
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
On 01/24/2014 07:20 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? I hate to be that guy, but have you even LOOKED? It's right on the page where Mikrotik sells the routers. http://routerboard.com/CCR1036-12G-4S -- Butch Evans 702-537-0979 Network Support and Engineering http://store.wispgear.net/ http://www.butchevans.com/ ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
