Marlon,
My apologies. I honestly do not even know what this is. Can you give us
a 50,000 foot overview of what this is? I guess I missed the call to do
something about whatever this is. I have been a bit out of touch with
these issues lately. My apologies.
Scriv
Marlon K. Schafer (509)
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory
landscape as it
Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that
is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
As a non engineer,
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
I figured my statement would generate comments about others running
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.
-Matt
Gino A. Villarini wrote:
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet
Cisco switches or routers ?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
3750 ME and 6500 series switchs along with 7300 series routers. We use
2800 series routers for the edges of our network where MPLS is not required.
-Matt
Gino A. Villarini wrote:
Cisco switches or routers ?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel
So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be
enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on
Patrick Leary wrote:
Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers.
We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally
So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to
It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU
adjustment feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your
firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for
wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size
is something that is
We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are
either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they
are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant
amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average
customer
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
We rarely use multi-point systems for
Can you give more details on the versions that require a license key?
What will they cost? What features will they have specifically? What is
FIPS 197? Could this FIPS 197 service allow for service to medical
facilities also? I would like to be able to approach the hospitals,
doctor's offices,
Sure, it's not like we can't put more than one Canopy backhaul on the
same channel.
-Matt
Brad Larson wrote:
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls!
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end.
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude
that a
Matt,
How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a
single tower?
Travis
Microserv
Matt Liotta wrote:
We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they
are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or
they are just data
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has
an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small
packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad
-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP
throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP
BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across.
This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is
I have seen testing on 4.0 BreezeAccess VL with 64 k packets where the new
4.0 outperformed version 3.1.25 by a very wide margin. Downstream throughput
of 40.29 meg's per second with 59,952 frames per second passed! Data from
3.1.25 was 2.46 meg's and 3,662 frames per second. Most 5 GHz solutions
I specifically left out the whitespaces because
they are already on the table and may see movement at any time. I didn't
want to put another 2 year hold on them
Marlon(509)
982-2181
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910
(Vonage)
Consulting services42846865
(icq)
And I run my own
What is baseline testing in your
context?
Marlon(509)
982-2181
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910
(Vonage)
Consulting services42846865
(icq)
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
I attached the original FCC nprm to the email.
Basically the FCC is asking if they should allocate 20 mhz (in two 10 mhz
chunks) for testing. The spectrum will be part federal and part non federal
spectrum. Here's the amazing kicker, this will be already allocated
spectrum! They are
As you guys know I'm no routing expert. Take this with a grain of salt
I've got two thoughts on all of this. First is, any technology we deploy on
a software side should ride the existing network. I'm talking big picture
not niche markets. A vpn should work as well on wifi as it does
We have installed a
set of HotSpots for a local Hotel. They are looking to us to provide 24 hour
technical support for their clients on an as-needed basis. Since we are a
small shop and I have no desire to answer calls at all hours in the morning, we
are looking to see if there is a way we
So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0
delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case.
Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput:
Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS
64
On the Advantage line that may be true. The numbers I am using were given to
me these past two weeks from current Canopy users with large networks. You
have to remember, with most systems small packets drive down the usable
capacity significantly. You are right that I need to do another batch of
Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme
solution.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about
A few weeks ago, I ran across a 2.4GHz 500mW amp that was a small
cylinder with an n-male on one end and an n-female on the other.
Slightly larger than the n-connecters and about 4-5 inches long
But I seem to have lost the link to it.
Anyone else seen this?
--
Blair Davis
AOL IM
Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your
statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your
insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy...
Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.
Brad Larson wrote:
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been
What I'm saying is data rates are only one part of doing voip. I know what
Canopy can do...You said I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy
AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls. Data rates have
very little to do with a scaling voip system with and without internet. Brad
http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd
That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform
using 50-50 up/down data ratio. Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using
25-75 up/down ratio.
Patrick
Jon Langeler wrote:
Patrick,
You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone
allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5
Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on
the same channel.
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:
It's
On 6/16/06, Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few weeks ago, I ran across a 2.4GHz 500mW amp that was a small
cylinder with an n-male on one end and an n-female on the other.
Slightly larger than the n-connecters and about 4-5 inches long
But I seem to have lost the link to it.
34 matches
Mail list logo
