Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Waaay to many variables to answer the question. Each deployment is different and requires proper engineering and experience... -Mike On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM, Mike Hale wrote: > A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying > to design said infrastructure. > On Jun 20, 2015 11:45 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > > > > Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low > > > power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :) > > > > what was unclear about the following? > > > > Randy Bush wrote: > > > From: Randy Bush > > > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network > > setup? > > > To: Mike Lyon > > > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > > > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 > > > ... > > > having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with > > > all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large > > > deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen > > > embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the > > > critical component is the engineer. > > > -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
A lot. It's a good point, but not very helpful to those engineers trying to design said infrastructure. On Jun 20, 2015 11:45 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > > Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low > > power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :) > > what was unclear about the following? > > Randy Bush wrote: > > From: Randy Bush > > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network > setup? > > To: Mike Lyon > > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 > > ... > > having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with > > all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large > > deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen > > embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the > > critical component is the engineer. >
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low > power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :) what was unclear about the following? Randy Bush wrote: > From: Randy Bush > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? > To: Mike Lyon > Cc: North American Network Operators' Group > Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:20:33 +0900 > ... > having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with > all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large > deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen > embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the > critical component is the engineer.
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Soultimately, what's the answer? A huge number of low cost, low power WAPs? Eager readers want to know. :) On Jun 20, 2015 10:30 PM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > > My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients > > picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have > > been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the > > first they can and they get link that's not good. > > we're lucky those mean vicious bad clients don't also come to ietf, > wwdc, crisco live, ... oh wait ... > > you are blaming the customer as if you worked for a telco. oh wait ... > :) > > > If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices > > per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. > > clue: with 600-1000 geeks there are gonna be 2k-4k devices. > > randy >
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:06:29 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > - Original Message - > > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > > I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that environment > > variable *used* to be called before political correctness became > > important. > > There are so many layers in that observation that I'm lost. > > Was posixly-correct a purposeful pun on politically correct, and I've > missed it all these decades? > > Or was it named something else earlier than that, which wasn't itself > politically correct? I'll let the perpetrator, Richard Stallman, explain. It was a kerfluffle regarding whether /bin/du should use units of 1,000 or 1024. http://karmak.org/archive/2003/01/12-14-99.epl.html pgp59EO311gVp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients > picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have > been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the > first they can and they get link that's not good. we're lucky those mean vicious bad clients don't also come to ietf, wwdc, crisco live, ... oh wait ... you are blaming the customer as if you worked for a telco. oh wait ... :) > If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices > per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. clue: with 600-1000 geeks there are gonna be 2k-4k devices. randy
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
On 6/20/2015 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote: My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good. If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. not really; they're in denial. why did san antonio work; the only nanog in 4 or more which did? why does ietf work? wireless is ugly. few know how to deploy at scale. it's just not easy. randy If people are curious what Cisco does for their 3x a year Cisco Live events (last week in San Diego there was 35TB of data transferred over that network), there's a panel discussion about how they deploy things and what tools they use for it. https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=76483&backBtn=true That's the session from Milan 2014, may require a free account to view the slides and video. The session from San Diego is at https://www.ciscolive.com/online/connect/sessionDetail.ww?SESSION_ID=83806&backBtn=true Doesn't look like they've finalized the slides and video for that session yet though. In Milan they deployed 325 APs across 6 controllers (3 HA pairs). From experience at the US Live events, there's 10-15K people in the main hall during keynotes, there's probably close to 100 APs in that room alone with the stadium antennas for the density needed. There's a LOT of people trying to tweet during and this year periscope the keynote speeches. If people are interested, I know a couple of the Cisco folks tend to lurk on this and other lists and can probably provide more details if asked nicely. Jeremy "TheBrez" Bresley b...@brezworks.com
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients > picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have > been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the > first they can and they get link that's not good. > > If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices > per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. not really; they're in denial. why did san antonio work; the only nanog in 4 or more which did? why does ietf work? wireless is ugly. few know how to deploy at scale. it's just not easy. randy
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
They've been getting 5150 - 5250 approval. DFS, IIRC, has yet to happen. Well, in their AirMax line, of which the UniFi will be similar internally. They didn't have any problem with their airFiber line, which is completely FPGA. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jared Mauch" To: "James Hartig" Cc: "NANOG list" Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 7:05:51 PM Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup? On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, James Hartig wrote: >> The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. > > The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP > Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest > firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels. > > Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319 UBNT went through much of 2013-2015 without many devices passing tests outside the ISM band. They seem to have changed who they do testing with, and combined with the rule changes at the FCC and correspondingly IC they were not equipped to handle that until this year it seems. They still have a huge backlog of DFS certifications which seem to be slowly getting approved as they pass testing. - Jared
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:27 PM, James Hartig wrote: >> The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. > > The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP > Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest > firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels. > > Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319 UBNT went through much of 2013-2015 without many devices passing tests outside the ISM band. They seem to have changed who they do testing with, and combined with the rule changes at the FCC and correspondingly IC they were not equipped to handle that until this year it seems. They still have a huge backlog of DFS certifications which seem to be slowly getting approved as they pass testing. - Jared
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
On Jun 20, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the >> last NANOG conference. > > and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus > units ] My understanding is that the most recent NANOG had issues with clients picking channels sequentially vs by signal strength. There may have been other issues but when all devices use 149 because that's the first they can and they get link that's not good. If people know of tricks to solve this when there are 600-1000 devices per room i am certain the NANOG eng team would love to know about it. -jared
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't > support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 GHz. The UniFi UAP-AC unit has not been cleared for DFS but looks like the UAP Outdoor has. I own a few UAP-AC v2's and I can confirm with the latest firmware (3.2.12) there is no support for DFS channels. Source: https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/td-p/697319 -- James Hartig
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great. > > Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at > the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF > penetration was awesome. > > Cisco is nothing to write home about and is over priced. Ive never used > Ruckus but it looks to be expensive for what it does. > > I'd stick with UBNT and Xirrus. having been in the back seat for many deployments over the years with all sorts of kit, i have seen great and reliable pretty large deployments of all of the above (well, xirrus only once). i have seen embarrassing messes with all of the above. i have concluded that the critical component is the engineer. randy
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly > at the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and > RF penetration was awesome. 'fess up. it worked because of bluebottle next door randy
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
- Original Message - > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" > On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:32:53 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > > - Original Message - > > > > > - use the posix-right timezone files > > > > What; not posixly-correct? > > I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that environment > variable *used* to be called before political correctness became > important. There are so many layers in that observation that I'm lost. Was posixly-correct a purposeful pun on politically correct, and I've missed it all these decades? Or was it named something else earlier than that, which wasn't itself politically correct? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Ive used Xirrus for a few festivals and hack-a-thons and they worked great. Ive also used UBNT UniFi with great success at numerous events, mainly at the old SF Mint (completely made out of Granite and concrete) and RF penetration was awesome. Cisco is nothing to write home about and is over priced. Ive never used Ruckus but it looks to be expensive for what it does. I'd stick with UBNT and Xirrus. -Mike On Jun 20, 2015 3:55 PM, "Ray Soucy" wrote: > I've actually never made it out to a NANOG conference, so I'm not sure. I > was just told this by peers who attended. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the > > > last NANOG conference. > > > > and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus > > units ] > > > > randy > > > > > > -- > Ray Patrick Soucy > Network Engineer > University of Maine System > > T: 207-561-3526 > F: 207-561-3531 > > MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network > www.maineren.net >
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I've actually never made it out to a NANOG conference, so I'm not sure. I was just told this by peers who attended. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the > > last NANOG conference. > > and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus > units ] > > randy > -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:32:53 -0400, Jay Ashworth said: > - Original Message - > > > - use the posix-right timezone files > > What; not posixly-correct? I wonder how many of us are old enough to remember what that environment variable *used* to be called before political correctness became important. pgpRyAKG0OCiw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
> I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the > last NANOG conference. and how did that work out? [ though i do not know it was the xirrus units ] randy
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
At 10:41 20/06/2015 +, Sina Owolabi wrote: http://www.extricom.com/ specializes in hi-density Wifi. See: http://www.extricom.com/category/large-venues http://www.extricom.com/category/Event_Installations -Hank Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density?
Re: VZW - fixed wireless services?
They also do it on the enterprise side. We have a number of sites with 4G as a backup WAN, we give them the SIM info and they allow us to assign a static v4 IP or they will also give us a 1918 d address and tunnel it back to us. Overall it works good most of the time the only complaint really is that when theres a problem it can sometimes be time consuming to troubleshoot and find out if the issue is actually on the cellular side or not. Alot of times VZW tells you to contact your radio mfr and the mfr tells you to contact verizon. chris On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Mike Lyon wrote: > I believe they just attach it as a regular data device on whatever data > plan you pick. It's known as Verizon HomeFusion: > > http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/homefusion/hf/main.do > > -Mike > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > > > Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on > > the offering? > > > > > > > > *From:* Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM > > *To:* Ryan Finnesey > > *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org > > *Subject:* Re: VZW - fixed wireless services? > > > > > > > > Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. > > > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey > wrote: > > > > Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed > > wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with > cisco > > but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. > > > > Cheers > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mike Lyon > > > > 408-621-4826 > > > > mike.l...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Mike Lyon > 408-621-4826 > mike.l...@gmail.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon >
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 14:16 Harlan Stenn wrote: > > shawn wilson writes: > > ... I mean letting computers figure out slower earth rotation on the > > fly would seem more accurate than leap seconds anyway. And then all of > > us who do earthly things and would like simpler libraries could live > > in peace. > > Really? Have you looked in to those calculations, and I'm only talking > about the allegedly predictable parts of those calculations, not things > like the jetstream, the circumpolar currents, or earthquakes. > Ok, forget that point - AFAIK, the only things that matter wrt time is agreement on interval/counter and epoch, and stability. Right now we only have agreement on interval. So while I'd prefer a consistent epoch and counter, I'll live with whatever as we have access to board agreement and stability (like this doesn't hit NANOG every time with "uh oh").
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
shawn wilson writes: > ... I mean letting computers figure out slower earth rotation on the > fly would seem more accurate than leap seconds anyway. And then all of > us who do earthly things and would like simpler libraries could live > in peace. Really? Have you looked in to those calculations, and I'm only talking about the allegedly predictable parts of those calculations, not things like the jetstream, the circumpolar currents, or earthquakes. H
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On Jun 19, 2015 2:05 PM, "Saku Ytti" wrote: > > On (2015-06-19 13:06 -0400), Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Hey, > > > The IERS will be adding a second to time again on my birthday; > > > > 2015-06-30T23:59:60 > > Hopefully this is last leap second we'll ever see. Non-monotonic time is an > abomination and very very few programs measuring passage of time are correct. > Even those which are, usually are not portable, most languages do not even > offer monotonic time in standard libraries. > Canada, China, England and Germany, shame on you for opposing leapsecondless > UTC. > > Next year hopefully GPSTIME. TAI and UTC are the same thing, with different > static offset. > Unlikely but here's hoping. I mean letting computers figure out slower earth rotation on the fly would seem more accurate than leap seconds anyway. And then all of us who do earthly things and would like simpler libraries could live in peace.
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I'd be grateful for any information on how to calculate for large scale wifi deployment On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 2:01 PM Ray Soucy wrote: > Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely > higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old > high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high > density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really > focus on the term too much, though. It's just a distraction from the real > question. > > The answer as always is "it depends". Without detailed floor plans, > survey information, and information on what kind of demand users will place > on the network, there is really no way to tell you what solution will work > well. > > If you need to service residential areas or hostel units you might be > better off looking at some of the newer AP designs that have come out in > the last year or so targeting that application, like the Cisco 702 or the > Xirus 320. > > The general design of these units is that they're both a low-power AP and > a small switch to provide residents with a few ports to plug in if they > need to. This allows you to have one cable drop to each room instead of > having to run separate jacks for APs and wired connections. The units are > wall-mount and if you have a challenging RF environment this design can be > really effective. > > I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last > NANOG conference. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Sina Owolabi > wrote: > >> Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed >> that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. >> That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, >> admin, etc.) >> Does this qualify as high-density? >> >> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: >> >>> Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started >>> supporting DFS in the US. >>> >>> Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, >>> U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I >>> don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. >>> >>> This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any >>> announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has >>> changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: >>> >>> https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 >>> >>> From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in >>> the >>> US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got >>> in >>> a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these >>> channels enough. >>> >>> Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for >>> U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), >>> until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller >>> without >>> violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. >>> >>> The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC >>> restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x >>> 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. >>> >>> Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products >>> for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the >>> FCC, >>> but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so >>> maybe >>> that's the point of confusion here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < >>> fai...@snappytelecom.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > FCC Cert claims different. >>> > >>> > :) >>> > >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > *From: *"Josh Luthman" >>> > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" >>> > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" >>> > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM >>> > >>> > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless >>> network >>> >>> > setup? >>> > >>> > Uhm he's not wrong... >>> > >>> > Josh Luthman >>> > Office: 937-552-2340 >>> > Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> > 1100 Wayne St >>> > Suite 1337 >>> > Troy, OH 45373 >>> > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they >>> don't >>> >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 >>> GHz. >>> >> >>> >> Huh >>> >> >>> >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are >>> not >>> >> accurate ... >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Faisal Imtiaz >>> >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - Original Message - >>> >> > From: "Ray Soucy" >>> >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" >>> >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" >>> >> > Sent: Frid
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
- Original Message - > - use the posix-right timezone files What; not posixly-correct? Cheers, -- jr ':-)' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
That's interesting, I will take a look. Thanks! On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Marco Teixeira wrote: > Rafael, > At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on > MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the > others are far behind on density. Check their case studies. > Em 20/06/2015 13:02, "Rafael Possamai" escreveu: > >> I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not >> aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be >> valid >> at 80% of implementations: >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-series/design_guide_c07-693245.html >> >> On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that >> has >> about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause >> should be doable. >> >> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed >> that >> > it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. >> > That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, >> > admin, etc.) >> > Does this qualify as high-density? >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: >> > >> > > Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started >> > > supporting DFS in the US. >> > > >> > > Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, >> > > U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I >> > > don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. >> > > >> > > This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any >> > > announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation >> has >> > > changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: >> > > >> > > https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 >> > > >> > > From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels >> in >> > the >> > > US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually >> got >> > in >> > > a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these >> > > channels enough. >> > > >> > > Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products >> for >> > > U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that >> yet), >> > > until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller >> > without >> > > violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. >> > > >> > > The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without >> FCC >> > > restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or >> 2 x >> > > 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. >> > > >> > > Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT >> products >> > > for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the >> > FCC, >> > > but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so >> > maybe >> > > that's the point of confusion here. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < >> > fai...@snappytelecom.net> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > FCC Cert claims different. >> > > > >> > > > :) >> > > > >> > > > 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 >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > *From: *"Josh Luthman" >> > > > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" >> > > > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" >> > > > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM >> > > > >> > > > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless >> > network >> > > > setup? >> > > > >> > > > Uhm he's not wrong... >> > > > >> > > > Josh Luthman >> > > > Office: 937-552-2340 >> > > > Direct: 937-552-2343 >> > > > 1100 Wayne St >> > > > Suite 1337 >> > > > Troy, OH 45373 >> > > > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they >> > don't >> > > >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for >> 5 >> > > GHz. >> > > >> >> > > >> Huh >> > > >> >> > > >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are >> > not >> > > >> accurate ... >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Faisal Imtiaz >> > > >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> - Original Message - >> > > >> > From: "Ray Soucy" >> > > >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" >> > > >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" >> > > >> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM >> > > >> > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless >> > network >> > > >> setup? >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but >> I've >> > had >> > > >> good >> > > >> > luck with Cisco for very high density (about
Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?
"Joe Abley" writes: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02 > > There are privacy concerns, here. But we might posit that you've > already in the business of trading privacy for convenience if you're > using a public resolver. Personally, I've always thought the privacy concerns of draft-vandergaast (not of using public recursive servers) are overwrought. The entity running the recursive nameserver has knowledge of the exact address (not just the subnet) that you're sending the query from, by inspection of the packet. The entity running the authoritative nameserver does not... but unless you're using DNS for some kind of off-label purpose ( http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ comes immediately to mind), the next thing you'll be doing once you have the reply is opening some kind of connection to the address returned... at which point the target entity will be able to tell the exact address that you're coming from. This assessment makes the assumption that the folks running the authoritative DNS servers are either the target entity or its agent. If that's an invalid assumption, one might say you have bigger problems. If someone could explain a privacy concern here that doesn't involve dipping into my meager tinfoil supply (I'm low and not going to the grocery until tomorrow), that would be swell. -r
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Compared to the old model of just providing coverage, it's definitely higher density. I think the point I was trying to make is that the old high density is the new normal, and what most on list would consider high density is more along the lines of stadium wireless. I wouldn't really focus on the term too much, though. It's just a distraction from the real question. The answer as always is "it depends". Without detailed floor plans, survey information, and information on what kind of demand users will place on the network, there is really no way to tell you what solution will work well. If you need to service residential areas or hostel units you might be better off looking at some of the newer AP designs that have come out in the last year or so targeting that application, like the Cisco 702 or the Xirus 320. The general design of these units is that they're both a low-power AP and a small switch to provide residents with a few ports to plug in if they need to. This allows you to have one cable drop to each room instead of having to run separate jacks for APs and wired connections. The units are wall-mount and if you have a challenging RF environment this design can be really effective. I've never run Xirrus personally, but I think they were used for the last NANOG conference. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Sina Owolabi wrote: > Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed > that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. > That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, > admin, etc.) > Does this qualify as high-density? > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: > >> Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started >> supporting DFS in the US. >> >> Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, >> U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I >> don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. >> >> This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any >> announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has >> changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: >> >> https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 >> >> From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in >> the >> US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in >> a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these >> channels enough. >> >> Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for >> U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), >> until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller >> without >> violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. >> >> The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC >> restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x >> 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. >> >> Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products >> for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, >> but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so >> maybe >> that's the point of confusion here. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > > >> wrote: >> >> > FCC Cert claims different. >> > >> > :) >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > -- >> > >> > *From: *"Josh Luthman" >> > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" >> > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" >> > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM >> > >> > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network >> >> > setup? >> > >> > Uhm he's not wrong... >> > >> > Josh Luthman >> > Office: 937-552-2340 >> > Direct: 937-552-2343 >> > 1100 Wayne St >> > Suite 1337 >> > Troy, OH 45373 >> > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" >> wrote: >> > >> >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't >> >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 >> GHz. >> >> >> >> Huh >> >> >> >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not >> >> accurate ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Faisal Imtiaz >> >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> > From: "Ray Soucy" >> >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" >> >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" >> >> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM >> >> > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless >> network >> >> setup? >> >> > >> >> > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've >> had >> >> good >> >> > luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a >> packed >> >> > auditorium actively using the netw
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On Sat 2015-06-20T10:48:17 +0300, Saku Ytti hath writ: > You're right. Hopefully POSIX will become monotonic next year, by removal of > leaps from UTC. Probably not. The ITU-R has outlined four methods for this issue, see http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectrum/Spectrum-planning/International-planning-ITU-and-other-international-planning-bodies/wrc-15-agenda-item-114 where of method A1, A2, B, C1, C2, and D not all of them remove the leap second from UTC. In any case, previous draft proposals have all specified a 5 year interval from deciding to change until the change happens, so we should plan for 5 more years of leap seconds no matter what. -- Steve AllenWGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High StreetVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/Hgt +250 m
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Rafael, At some scales, the WiFi standard alone will not cut it... Research on MERUNETWORKS virtual cell tecnology. I have done a trial with them. All the others are far behind on density. Check their case studies. Em 20/06/2015 13:02, "Rafael Possamai" escreveu: > I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not > aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid > at 80% of implementations: > > > http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-series/design_guide_c07-693245.html > > On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has > about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause > should be doable. > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi > wrote: > > > Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed > that > > it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. > > That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, > > admin, etc.) > > Does this qualify as high-density? > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: > > > > > Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started > > > supporting DFS in the US. > > > > > > Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, > > > U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I > > > don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. > > > > > > This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any > > > announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has > > > changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: > > > > > > https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 > > > > > > From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in > > the > > > US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got > > in > > > a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these > > > channels enough. > > > > > > Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products > for > > > U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), > > > until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller > > without > > > violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. > > > > > > The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC > > > restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or > 2 x > > > 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. > > > > > > Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT > products > > > for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the > > FCC, > > > but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so > > maybe > > > that's the point of confusion here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < > > fai...@snappytelecom.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > FCC Cert claims different. > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > *From: *"Josh Luthman" > > > > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" > > > > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" > > > > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM > > > > > > > > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless > > network > > > > setup? > > > > > > > > Uhm he's not wrong... > > > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > > > 1100 Wayne St > > > > Suite 1337 > > > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they > > don't > > > >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 > > > GHz. > > > >> > > > >> Huh > > > >> > > > >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are > > not > > > >> accurate ... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Faisal Imtiaz > > > >> Snappy Internet & Telecom > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> - Original Message - > > > >> > From: "Ray Soucy" > > > >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" > > > >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" > > > >> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM > > > >> > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless > > network > > > >> setup? > > > >> > > > > >> > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've > > had > > > >> good > > > >> > luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a > > packed > > > >> > auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with > the > > > >> > presenter). > > > >> > > > > >> > The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they > don't > > > >> > support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel
Paging postmaster at gmx.net/gmx.de et.al.
[ Tried this over on mailop; no response, so now trying here. ] I've noticed that one of my servers has been unable to establish port 25 connections to hosts such as mx00.emig.gmx.net for over a week...and I'm entirely puzzled as to why, since it only sends a trickle of traffic to a handful of users @gmx.net/@gmx.de etc. (They're on a couple of small, low-volume Mailman-managed lists, and have been for time periods ranging from "over a year" to "most of a decade" without any issues.) Some help figuring out why this is happening would be entirely welcome. Thanks, ---rsk
Re: SIP trunking providers
Thanks everyone for your responses. On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Rafael Possamai wrote: > Would anyone in the list be able to recommend a SIP trunk provider in the > Chicago area? Not a VoIP expert, so just looking for someone with previous > experience. > > > Thanks, > Rafael >
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
I don't think there's an actual standard for density, at least I am not aware of one. Independent of the vendor you use, this guide should be valid at 80% of implementations: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/aironet-1250-series/design_guide_c07-693245.html On Meraki's website there's a case study of an entertainment venue that has about 2,000 users per night, so I am assuming 1,000 which is your cause should be doable. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Sina Owolabi wrote: > Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that > it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. > That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, > admin, etc.) > Does this qualify as high-density? > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: > > > Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started > > supporting DFS in the US. > > > > Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, > > U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I > > don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. > > > > This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any > > announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has > > changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: > > > > https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 > > > > From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in > the > > US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got > in > > a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these > > channels enough. > > > > Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for > > U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), > > until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller > without > > violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. > > > > The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC > > restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x > > 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. > > > > Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products > > for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the > FCC, > > but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so > maybe > > that's the point of confusion here. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < > fai...@snappytelecom.net> > > wrote: > > > > > FCC Cert claims different. > > > > > > :) > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > *From: *"Josh Luthman" > > > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" > > > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" > > > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM > > > > > > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless > network > > > setup? > > > > > > Uhm he's not wrong... > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > > 1100 Wayne St > > > Suite 1337 > > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" > > wrote: > > > > > >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they > don't > > >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 > > GHz. > > >> > > >> Huh > > >> > > >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are > not > > >> accurate ... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Faisal Imtiaz > > >> Snappy Internet & Telecom > > >> > > >> > > >> - Original Message - > > >> > From: "Ray Soucy" > > >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" > > >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" > > >> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM > > >> > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless > network > > >> setup? > > >> > > > >> > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've > had > > >> good > > >> > luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a > packed > > >> > auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the > > >> > presenter). > > >> > > > >> > The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't > > >> > support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 > > >> GHz. > > >> > That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz > > channels > > >> or > > >> > 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating > small > > >> cells > > >> > is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are > > >> really > > >> > tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense > > they > > >> > advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential > > area > > >> but > > >> > it requires all APs to share a singl
Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network setup?
Thanks everybody. I've been corrected on density... I've been informed that it's to be a minimum of 1000 users per building. That's 8,000 users. (8 buildings, not counting walkways and courtyards, admin, etc.) Does this qualify as high-density? On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:33 AM Ray Soucy wrote: > Well, I could certainly be wrong, but it's news to me if UBNT started > supporting DFS in the US. > > Your first screenshot is listing the UAP for 5240 which is channel 48, > U-NII-1. The second show 5825 which is the upper limit of U-NNI-3. I > don't see any U-NII-2 in what you posted. > > This forum post may be a bit out of date, but I haven't seen any > announcement or information on the forums to indicate the situation has > changed, and I'm pretty good at searching: > > https://community.ubnt.com/t5/UniFi-Wireless/DFS/m-p/700461#M54771 > > From this thread it looks like the ability to configure DFS channels in the > US was a UI bug and only showing for ZH anyway. IIRC they actually got in > a bit of trouble with the FCC over not restricting the use of these > channels enough. > > Regardless of whether or not the FCC has cleared UBNT indoor products for > U-NII-2 and U-NII-2-extended (and I haven't seen evidence of that yet), > until you can configure APs to use those channels in the controller without > violating FCC regulations I don't consider them usable. > > The UAP-AC doesn't seem to support DFS channels at all even without FCC > restrictions, which kind of kills the point of AC, only 4 x 40 MHz or 2 x > 80 MHz channels doesn't cut it when we're talking about density. > > Note we're talking about indoor wireless and there ARE some UBNT products > for outdoor WISP use that do support DFS and have been cleared by the FCC, > but we would only be looking at the UAP-PRO or UAP-AC in this case so maybe > that's the point of confusion here. > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Faisal Imtiaz > wrote: > > > FCC Cert claims different. > > > > :) > > > > 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 > > > > -- > > > > *From: *"Josh Luthman" > > *To: *"Faisal Imtiaz" > > *Cc: *"NANOG list" , "Ray Soucy" > > *Sent: *Friday, June 19, 2015 9:16:37 PM > > > > *Subject: *Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network > > setup? > > > > Uhm he's not wrong... > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Jun 19, 2015 9:13 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" > wrote: > > > >> >>>The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't > >> support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 > GHz. > >> > >> Huh > >> > >> Please verify your facts before making blanket statements which are not > >> accurate ... > >> > >> > >> > >> Faisal Imtiaz > >> Snappy Internet & Telecom > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> > From: "Ray Soucy" > >> > To: "Sina Owolabi" > >> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" > >> > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:07:01 PM > >> > Subject: Re: Whats' a good product for a high-density Wireless network > >> setup? > >> > > >> > I know you don't want to hear this answer because of cost but I've had > >> good > >> > luck with Cisco for very high density (about 1,000 clients in a packed > >> > auditorium actively using the network as they follow along with the > >> > presenter). > >> > > >> > The thing you need to watch out for with Ubiquiti is that they don't > >> > support DFS, so the entire U-NII-2 channel space is off limits for 5 > >> GHz. > >> > That's pretty significant because you're limited to 9 x 20 MHz > channels > >> or > >> > 4 x 40 MHz channels. Keeping the power level down and creating small > >> cells > >> > is essential for high density, so with less channels your hands are > >> really > >> > tied in that case. Also, avoid the Zero Handoff marketing nonsense > they > >> > advertise; I'm sure it can work great for a low client residential > area > >> but > >> > it requires all APs to share a single channel and depends upon > >> coordinating > >> > only one active transmitter at a time, so it simply won't scale. > >> > > >> > I don't have experience with other vendors at large scale or high > >> density. > >> > > >> > I don't think what you're talking about is really high density anymore > >> > though. That's just normal coverage. Wireless is a lot more > >> complicated > >> > than selecting a vendor, though. If you know what you're doing even > >> > Ubiquiti could work decently, but if you don't even a Cisco solution > >> won't > >> > save you. You really need to be on top of surveying correctly and > >> having > >> > appropriate AP placement and channel distribution. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Sina Owolabi > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
On (2015-06-19 21:53 +), Harlan Stenn wrote: > It's a problem with POSIX, not UTC. > > UTC is monotonic. You're right. Hopefully POSIX will become monotonic next year, by removal of leaps from UTC. -- ++ytti
Re: REMINDER: LEAP SECOND
Mel Beckman writes: > Harlan, > > This is cisco's recommended workaround, the ultimate conclusion of an exhau= > stive study of all Cisco firmware and after detailed post mortem analysis o= > f two previous Leap seconds: > > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCut33302 Fair enough. And I've been trying to get Cisco to work with us for very many years. They have yet to show any interest. But they'd be paying us for that. We have no leverage with them. But folks who are paying Cisco for support? For the number of years Cisco has been using NTP and for the number of product lines that use it, they could certainly do better. I know they were current when I did the port for the MDS switch line, years ago. -- Harlan Stenn http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!
