Charles,
You are full of all kinds of good posts this weekend. Glad to have you back
on list!
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have
the potential to stay a price leader in Quality PtP.
As for the PTMP
To this day, I have never been able to get over the need to do scans on the
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling
What the manufacturer's are missing is a very basic key principle.
Lets look at Blackberry for a second. Whats so good about them? Talking
about a minimal weak layer of added value. They offer Push Email. HUGE
HUGE impact in productivity.
But the thing is this is not a new unique idea,
Not true. Not true at all. Cable Companies are not rate of return
regulated. Every dollar they spend is below the line. The ILECS are
strictly regulated as to what can be spent above the line. Tarrifed rates
ONLY support tarrifed services.
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi
Tom,
Trango has already announced they have canceled the MM5 product.
Travis
Microserv
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Which really leaves me wondering what Trango is going to be selling?
Kick ASX PTP systems. Both Tri-Band Atlases, and Licensed Links. The have
the potential to
Matt,
Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number
of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth,
yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no
issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the
bandwidth
While the ILECs may have been unable to directly pass along the cost of
their broadband infrastructure to the consumer, they have successful engaged
in a reverse of the concept. They have placed the burden of their dying
POTS infrastructure on their broadband subscribers.
ILECS have instituted
So could the link work because both ends are 200'+ over the bulk of the
middle?
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19,
* Mike Hammett wrote, On 7/20/2008 12:09 PM:
So could the link work because both ends are 200'+ over the bulk of the
middle?
I don't think it will work. We tried last year to get through some thick
trees and couldn't do it even with a relay at the edge of the tree line.
We do have 900
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.
The oswave has polling...
gino
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
Better ethernet configuration options
5 10 40 channels support
gino
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:13 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] top 10
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik
community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more
sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)
First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the
The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue
is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people
are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a
whole new world.
Travis
Gino Villarini wrote:
Well you all have the option to
Butch,
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated
that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is
in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They
would have to build a new OS for that processor.
Travis
Microserv
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that
Afaik the latests Mk builds are ATheros cpu focused, all the latest mikrotik
routerboards are atheros based
gino
-Original Message-
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:36 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
If I remember correctly, it was only like $10 or $20 more.
Here's the difference the Crossroads (which I have deployed) still
requires a PoE, antenna, pigtail, etc. bringing the cost up to over
$150... and then you are still stuck with a vertical or horizontal
system, and not FCC
Really... I did not know that... I will contact Ubiquiti about getting
a 16M version so I can try and load MT on it. :)
Travis
Microserv
Butch Evans wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that
Not exactly true. The POTS infrastructure rate of return is recovered
through basic rates, NECA and USF settlements. It truly supports itself
nicely. We do have to option of refusing to offer Naked DSL. But that
extra revenue does not get applied to local loop support. It goes in our
I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory.
- Original Message -
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
And
Travis,
I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and
customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg
connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear
would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all
of the issues
Arc Wireless has one but it is 12.5dBi as well. It will fit the RB411,
RB133, or RB532 but the enclosure isn't big enough for a RB433 board.
We have these in stock.
Jim
jeffcosoho.com
Mike Hammett wrote:
I've seen one by PacWireless and one by MTI. Does anyone know of one with
greater
Matt,
Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth
is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a
reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling"
system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available
bandwidth...
Yeah, I am always on the lookout for the ILEC comment here and there.
Our ILEC has 900 customers scattered over 12 counties of two states with
about 800 miles of fiber.
We have 13 central office switches. That is an average of about 70
subscribers per CO switch.
We have 21 office codes/wire
There used to be a graphic on one of the Canopy marketing pages showing the
loading vs latency curves for polled vs non polled systems. Lightly loaded
802.11 will always do better but once you get up to 20 or 30 users, the polling
type systems start to shine with their fixed latency.
-
I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload
that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
at that
Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching
the forum I found:
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave
We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5.
And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they
will (likely) do it.
I am not able
All are the same platform, the differ only on the form factor and antennas
gino
-Original Message-
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:19 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support
I've used the Arc enclosure on 5 GHz before PW had the 24 dBi RooTenna.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:44 PM
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.
Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to
These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)
Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!
*US Distributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*
Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,
-Original Message-
From: Matt Ferre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like
Never really had a major problem with this. Just keep P2P apps limited
at the core router, no intercell relay and connection limits per customer.
It would be nice if there was a polling implementation that could be
easily implemented with standards-based equipment instead of proprietary
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput?
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Matt Ferre wrote:
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one
Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.
On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like
Because that would:
1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,
2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be
The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes),
it is the network layers job to keep track of that. If packets are
getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends. It shouldn't
matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what
program
One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.
First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became
This only applies to already open TCP connections. If the application
keeps opening new TCP connections, or better, uses UDP flood on a
purpose, it will not be affected by dropped packets in any way.
On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The application layer knows nothing about
MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio
card capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50
R52H cards and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are
still people seeing that mess going on.
The question MT needs to ask themselves...
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
Travis
Microserv
Matt Ferre wrote:
Because that would:
1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than
they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying
hundreds per month of now).
If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software
ASAP.
Travis
Matt Ferre wrote:
One more note. Mikrotik
R52H cards are made for Mikrotik by Compex. And these are exactly the
same cards as R52 ones (hardware wise) with calibration data pushed to
the limits. Or even further, one step too far, and perhaps that's why
you see such failure rate.
Cisco doesn't sell their software for generic x86 systems
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.
On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they
currently make on the Crossroads
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember
how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company
that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)
Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"
*US Distributor for
YES!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)
Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"
*US Distributor
They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. It's in the FCC
docs.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:32 PM
DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They
are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops
support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very
quickly to serve that need.
Scott
-- Original
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT,
dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough
for most of us.
A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size
I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
that already has the license for it.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money.
Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a
spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it. For example, a
fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size
pieces. I would love to write a small chunk. I used to support myself
But I'm not. I never bought MT based clients precisely because they
were too expensive. While I would like to have the control to do all of
the ROS things on the client radio I could not justify the expense of
purchasing the components and assembling the final product to deploy.
MT could
So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked
my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research
on Nanostations
(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as
I'm a relative newbie to this segment of
PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in
Linux. The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the
polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to
do. It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is
out there
Yup... it's the Catch 22 scenario... :(
Travis
Matt Ferre wrote:
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.
On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE
You've summed it up pretty good. I have a few in the field and so far
they are holding up well. I've been buying the NS5s when I need new CPE
equipment (and I can find someone who has them in stock).
For residential deployments they are currently my CPE of choice.
Sam Tetherow
Why not just the normal, regular version?
Blair Davis wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to
I agree. But the rest of us that are using a protocol like Nstreme on
Mikrotik, would like another solution. We currently pay about $180 for a
nice, professional looking Mikrotik CPE (including antenna, card,
pigtail, PoE, etc). If we could get a NS for $80 and put a MT license on
it for $40,
Charles,
I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.
Charles Wu wrote:
So, seeing the activity on
Flash size and memory limits?
fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.
Travis Johnson wrote:
Why not just the normal, regular version?
Blair Davis wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing,
but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;)
Travis
Blair Davis wrote:
Flash size and memory limits?
fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with
Charles Wu wrote:
Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to
being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with
the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those
products are paying for the extra RD effort
did not catch that. all good.
on the other hand, they might make a 'client only' flash that fit in
the smaller space if they were worried about impacting their higher end
gear sales?
Travis Johnson wrote:
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg
Hi Blair,
A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications
CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)
+23 dBm Output Power Max
-85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications
NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi
Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo
1) 3 year warranty
2) Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good
luck getting them consistently.
3) Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers.
There are already some questions about the durability of
I believe someone else on here said you can get them with 16 mb flash.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Blair Davis
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA]
Long time, Charles!
All my 802.11bg problems are client talking to AP. In all cases, the
client can hear the AP just fine.
Charles Wu wrote:
Hi Blair,
A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications
CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)
+23 dBm Output Power Max
23dbm
Charles, we are a Canopy shop. I think most are looking at the ability to
compete more profitably with DSL/cable...at least that is what I am after. Not
counting the build out of lines/cable to the customer, the DSL/Cable Co's are
out around $50 or less for the CPE end. I have not looked in a
I'm looking for a replacement and have a fella on board I'm sending to
ComTrain.
What is a competitive climbing salary for someone just starting out?
--
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com
This
Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86. Seeing that
they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!
Scottie Arnett wrote:
DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They
are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS
We pay a starting tower climber (he can climb and screw bolts) who shows up
to work on-time everday, has a solid driving record, and a clean drug test --
$30-35k / year with full benefits including health, dental, 401k, etc depending
on his level of experience -- even if he is Comtrain
A sort of naive question:
Is the polling from tc particularly different? Does it need to be
done via MAC and not IP?
dhcpd can easily assign IPs based on the client's MAC.
Do people just need a GUI on top of OpenWRT?
-j
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
79 matches
Mail list logo
