[WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

Hello all,

I've been doing some experimenting with VOIP and asterisk over my 
wireless network and came up with a few general observations that I 
thought might be useful for those of you looking at voip and how it 
impacts your network:


1)  My test voip server is a P3 550 with 512MB of memory.  I installed 
Fedora Core 3 and AMP (Asterisk Management Portal - available from 
http://amp.voxbox.ca).   This provides a very straightforward web based 
interface for configuring Asterisk, but is not without a few bugs - more 
on that later.


2)  I am using accounts from Nufone and Teliax to do my beta testing.  
Nufone has been around longer and has a reputation for being very solid 
technically, but does not have much for online assistance.  Teliax has 
excellent online resources, and also has local numbers in many places.  
I was quite surprised to find out that they had local numbers in my 
small town in Nebraska.  Nufone works, but I think that Teliax may be 
worth a little extra just to get the better support resources and access 
to more local numbers. 

3)  I am using a Sipura SPA-2000 two line adapter at home to do my 
testing.  With some experimentation, I was able to get this adapter to 
work through NAT. 

4)  My home connection is limited to 1024K down/512K upload and connects 
to a StarOS access point.  My home CPE is a WRAP board with a CM9 card 
running in 802.11b mode.  The StarOS AP has 200+ customers on it, is 
located 8 miles away and has approximately 80 customers on the sector 
that services my house.  The VOIP server is two hops from my home, and 
average latency to it is 10ms.   There is no QOS on the network.  The 
telephone in the house is a Panasonic 2.4Ghz Frequency hopping phone, 
and it sits next to a Ezy Net radio in client mode that connects to my 
home access point.   I use an IPCop firewall box.  The  IPCop box is an 
older version that doesn't have the QOS shaping available.


4)  Initial testing was with the G711 (aka ulaw) codec that is standard 
on the Sipura and also a standard codec in Asterisk.   This  codec  
used  80KB up , and  about 80KB down when a two way conversation was 
going.  On this heavily loaded AP, this was a bit of  a problem, but it 
was usable.   I was able to carry on a one hour conversation with only a 
minimum of noticeable breakup one night, and the next day I had another 
conversation that deteriorated rapidly.  Downloading also seemed to 
affect the connection quite a bit.


5)  Second round of testing was with an iaxComm softphone.  The 
softphone connected with the GSM codec and used  15 to 25KB during 
conversation.  Audio quality seemed to be pretty good, but it was hard 
to tell becuase I do not have a headset on my PC - I was dependent on 
the built-in speakers and microphone. 

6)  Final round of testing was with the Sipura adapter after I was able 
to get the G729 codec operational on the Asterisk box.  By setting the 
Sipura to only use G729, traffic was 24KB up and 24KB down during two 
way conversation.  Audio quality was not quite as good as with G711,  
but there were fewer breakups and even with a large download going, it 
was still usable.


5)  AMP has a few bugs, namely with the provisioning of inbound 
numbers.  Everything looks right on the web page, but sometimes the 
configs work and sometimes they do not.  I have a trouble ticket in with 
them on my support contract so that hopefully I can get to the bottom of 
the problem.  Other than this, AMP is an excellent front-end for 
asterisk and I am pretty confident that I could put 100 or so users on 
this system and manage them without a lot of problems.   After that 
point it will be time for a real server that is integrated into my 
billing and accounting systems, but for experimenting and doing proof of 
case, this one will work just fine.


Conclusions so far:

-  Asterisk is pretty decent for testing out voip and doing small scale 
implementations.  I'm pretty sure that it will scale a lot larger and do 
more, but will also get more complex to manage
-  Teliax is great for ITSP services and is very asterisk friendly.   
http://www.teliax.com/
-  AMP is nice, but has a few bugs.  The 1.10.008 version may be a bit 
more stable than the latest version (1.10.009) but lacks a few important 
features if you are intending to do some beta testing to customers or 
reselling.
-  G729 codec is far superior to G711 over 802.11b wireless.  GSM is 
also good, but is not supported by many ATA adapters.  ILBC is 
supposedly the best one for wireless networks, but I have not had a 
chance to test it out yet.
-  Sipura adapters are inexpensive and have lots of features, but don't 
have GSM or ILBC codecs.  
-  Even under wireless conditions that are pretty  hostile (heavily 
loaded access point,  2.4Ghz cordless phone, wireless connection inside 
the house) the voip quality was very acceptable. 
-  Even without QOS, voip was still usable.  I would really like to 
figure out how to optimize 

RE: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting

[Paul Hendry]

Hi Matt,

We are using Asterisk too and it does seem to be very feature rich.
When you where testing did you notice a difference between the voice quality
of GSM and G729? Also, is your Asterisk server peering with your provider
using IAX2 and G711?
To optimize your StarOS AP I guess your gonna need to wait for V3 or
upgrade to StarVX ;)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists
Sent: 27 September 2005 09:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
WISP-Related Topics
Subject: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting

Hello all,

I've been doing some experimenting with VOIP and asterisk over my 
wireless network and came up with a few general observations that I 
thought might be useful for those of you looking at voip and how it 
impacts your network:

1)  My test voip server is a P3 550 with 512MB of memory.  I installed 
Fedora Core 3 and AMP (Asterisk Management Portal - available from 
http://amp.voxbox.ca).   This provides a very straightforward web based 
interface for configuring Asterisk, but is not without a few bugs - more 
on that later.

2)  I am using accounts from Nufone and Teliax to do my beta testing.  
Nufone has been around longer and has a reputation for being very solid 
technically, but does not have much for online assistance.  Teliax has 
excellent online resources, and also has local numbers in many places.  
I was quite surprised to find out that they had local numbers in my 
small town in Nebraska.  Nufone works, but I think that Teliax may be 
worth a little extra just to get the better support resources and access 
to more local numbers. 

3)  I am using a Sipura SPA-2000 two line adapter at home to do my 
testing.  With some experimentation, I was able to get this adapter to 
work through NAT. 

4)  My home connection is limited to 1024K down/512K upload and connects 
to a StarOS access point.  My home CPE is a WRAP board with a CM9 card 
running in 802.11b mode.  The StarOS AP has 200+ customers on it, is 
located 8 miles away and has approximately 80 customers on the sector 
that services my house.  The VOIP server is two hops from my home, and 
average latency to it is 10ms.   There is no QOS on the network.  The 
telephone in the house is a Panasonic 2.4Ghz Frequency hopping phone, 
and it sits next to a Ezy Net radio in client mode that connects to my 
home access point.   I use an IPCop firewall box.  The  IPCop box is an 
older version that doesn't have the QOS shaping available.

4)  Initial testing was with the G711 (aka ulaw) codec that is standard 
on the Sipura and also a standard codec in Asterisk.   This  codec  
used  80KB up , and  about 80KB down when a two way conversation was 
going.  On this heavily loaded AP, this was a bit of  a problem, but it 
was usable.   I was able to carry on a one hour conversation with only a 
minimum of noticeable breakup one night, and the next day I had another 
conversation that deteriorated rapidly.  Downloading also seemed to 
affect the connection quite a bit.

5)  Second round of testing was with an iaxComm softphone.  The 
softphone connected with the GSM codec and used  15 to 25KB during 
conversation.  Audio quality seemed to be pretty good, but it was hard 
to tell becuase I do not have a headset on my PC - I was dependent on 
the built-in speakers and microphone. 

6)  Final round of testing was with the Sipura adapter after I was able 
to get the G729 codec operational on the Asterisk box.  By setting the 
Sipura to only use G729, traffic was 24KB up and 24KB down during two 
way conversation.  Audio quality was not quite as good as with G711,  
but there were fewer breakups and even with a large download going, it 
was still usable.

5)  AMP has a few bugs, namely with the provisioning of inbound 
numbers.  Everything looks right on the web page, but sometimes the 
configs work and sometimes they do not.  I have a trouble ticket in with 
them on my support contract so that hopefully I can get to the bottom of 
the problem.  Other than this, AMP is an excellent front-end for 
asterisk and I am pretty confident that I could put 100 or so users on 
this system and manage them without a lot of problems.   After that 
point it will be time for a real server that is integrated into my 
billing and accounting systems, but for experimenting and doing proof of 
case, this one will work just fine.

Conclusions so far:

-  Asterisk is pretty decent for testing out voip and doing small scale 
implementations.  I'm pretty sure that it will scale a lot larger and do 
more, but will also get more complex to manage
-  Teliax is great for ITSP services and is very asterisk friendly.   
http://www.teliax.com/
-  AMP is nice, but has a few bugs.  The 1.10.008 version may be a bit 
more stable than the latest version (1.10.009) but lacks a few important 
features if you are intending to do some beta testing to customers or 
reselling.
-  G

RE: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting

[Brian Webster]

Matt,
I found an easy way to set up an asterisk box with AMP called [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
http://asteriskathome.sourceforge.net/, they have good help pages. You burn
an ISO disk and then let it do it's thing on boot. It will wipe the hard
drive clean and do a fresh install but it works great. I ran it on a similar
machine to yours. I'll have to play with the codec's some more to see about
performance issues. I just picked up a USB phone and have started playing
with it in addition to my sipura box. On a laptop it's nice not needing the
headset. When I set mine up I put it in the DMZ of my router, when I was on
the road helping Mac I was able to get the IAX soft phone to connect as an
extension. This allowed me to pull dial tone from home wherever I could
connect, nice tool. I have a VOIP account from Broadvoice and was able to
log in and switch over easily to my asterisk box from the SIPURA I was
using. For those who don't want to set up a paid account with a VOIP
provider they can set up a Free World Dial Up account
http://www.freeworlddialup.com/. With this you can call peer to peer,
outgoing 800 numbers, and PSTN callers can call you if they have the list of
access numbers attached all for free. I encourage everyone to at least play
with this and become familiar with the technology. VOIP has been a big part
of the hurricane recovery efforts for WISP's.

Thanks for the information Matt, it will be a big help to all.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 
Free World Dialup #481416


-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
WISP-Related Topics
Subject: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting


Hello all,

I've been doing some experimenting with VOIP and asterisk over my
wireless network and came up with a few general observations that I
thought might be useful for those of you looking at voip and how it
impacts your network:

1)  My test voip server is a P3 550 with 512MB of memory.  I installed
Fedora Core 3 and AMP (Asterisk Management Portal - available from
http://amp.voxbox.ca).   This provides a very straightforward web based
interface for configuring Asterisk, but is not without a few bugs - more
on that later.

2)  I am using accounts from Nufone and Teliax to do my beta testing.
Nufone has been around longer and has a reputation for being very solid
technically, but does not have much for online assistance.  Teliax has
excellent online resources, and also has local numbers in many places.
I was quite surprised to find out that they had local numbers in my
small town in Nebraska.  Nufone works, but I think that Teliax may be
worth a little extra just to get the better support resources and access
to more local numbers.

3)  I am using a Sipura SPA-2000 two line adapter at home to do my
testing.  With some experimentation, I was able to get this adapter to
work through NAT.

4)  My home connection is limited to 1024K down/512K upload and connects
to a StarOS access point.  My home CPE is a WRAP board with a CM9 card
running in 802.11b mode.  The StarOS AP has 200+ customers on it, is
located 8 miles away and has approximately 80 customers on the sector
that services my house.  The VOIP server is two hops from my home, and
average latency to it is 10ms.   There is no QOS on the network.  The
telephone in the house is a Panasonic 2.4Ghz Frequency hopping phone,
and it sits next to a Ezy Net radio in client mode that connects to my
home access point.   I use an IPCop firewall box.  The  IPCop box is an
older version that doesn't have the QOS shaping available.

4)  Initial testing was with the G711 (aka ulaw) codec that is standard
on the Sipura and also a standard codec in Asterisk.   This  codec
used  80KB up , and  about 80KB down when a two way conversation was
going.  On this heavily loaded AP, this was a bit of  a problem, but it
was usable.   I was able to carry on a one hour conversation with only a
minimum of noticeable breakup one night, and the next day I had another
conversation that deteriorated rapidly.  Downloading also seemed to
affect the connection quite a bit.

5)  Second round of testing was with an iaxComm softphone.  The
softphone connected with the GSM codec and used  15 to 25KB during
conversation.  Audio quality seemed to be pretty good, but it was hard
to tell becuase I do not have a headset on my PC - I was dependent on
the built-in speakers and microphone.

6)  Final round of testing was with the Sipura adapter after I was able
to get the G729 codec operational on the Asterisk box.  By setting the
Sipura to only use G729, traffic was 24KB up and 24KB down during two
way conversation.  Audio quality was not quite as good as with G711,
but there were fewer breakups and even with a large download going, it
was still usable.

5)  AMP has a few bugs, namely with the provisioning of inbound
numbers.

[WISPA] orinoco AP-1000

[robert maier]

If anyone is interested I have 13 still in the box Orinooco AP-1000 that I want to sell for 125.00 plus freight
		Yahoo! for Good 
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] orinoco AP-1000

[Blair Davis]

Robert,

If it is $125 for the lot, I'll take them!

 :-) 

robert maier wrote:

  
  If anyone is interested I have 13 still in the box Orinooco
AP-1000 that I want to sell for 125.00 plus freight
  
   
  Yahoo! for Good
  Click here to
donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005
  



-- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Texas Power Restoration Time Frame Estimates

[John Scrivner]

Here is the latest estimates for power restoration for anyone who may be 
in the Texas affected areas:


Below is some info on the status of energy restoration in Texas.  Listed are 
the companies and estimates of when they think the counties they support will 
be restored. This is for INFO and PLANNING purposes only and the restoration 
timeframes listed in parenthesis are estimates.

Entergy (many areas not for a month)

- Chambers, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, Montgomery, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Walker 

Sam Houston Elec Coop (maybe in a month) 


- not reported county

Center Point (up by Friday)

- Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris

TXU (up today) 


- not reported by county

SWEPCO (up by 27/28 Sep)  


- Bowie, Gregg, Harrison, Panola, Walker




begin:vcard
fn:John Scrivner
n:Scrivner;John
org:Mt. Vernon. Net, Inc.
adr;dom:PO Box 1582;;1 Dr Park Road Suite H1;Mt. Vernon;Il;62864
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:President
tel;work:618-244-6868
url:http://www.mvn.net/
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum foremergency responders

[Tom DeReggi]

Because we have a new commission bought by the ILECs and/or Big business 
Republicans?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum 
foremergency responders




Snip/
Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum for emergency responders 
came after Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) 
called for Congress to move forward on legislation that would free up 
radio spectrum by requiring television stations to switch from analog to 
digital broadcasts. A move to digital television (DTV) would free up 
spectrum in the upper 700-MHz radio frequency band for commercial and 
public safety uses. The FCC has said it would give 24 MHz of that spectrum 
to public safety users and auction off 60 MHz for commercial uses. /snip


http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2005/092205-fcc-katrina.html?nl&code=nledgenewsalert7636





I got an idea, why don't they just open it up to wisps all across the 
country, let us use ths spectrum for what we are now doing and then in the 
event of another disaster, there will already be gear in place to keep 
everyone going?


George


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum foremergency responders

[Tom DeReggi]

"Auction", I hate that evil word.

Really guys, if there is any time to hammer congressional legislators and 
Home land security personelle, NOW is the time.  Before our precious 
spectrum is auctioned off to the special interets.  Auctioning off 700Mhz to 
a major IELC could be the death of independent rural WISPs.


I got an idea, why don't they give the FULL 700Mhz to the 700 ISPs, spread 
out decentrally across the country, and in trade all 7000 WISPs will give 
FREE access / priority access to public safety officials as needed.  (except 
public safety buy's their own CPEs).  Instantly the staff of 7000 ISPs 
across the country available for disaster relief. it would be like the Navy 
reserves but instead the WISP reserves.


Basically anyone that is granted a non-exclusive license of 700Mhz must 
first register as a volunteer emergency communications AID, and conform to 
guidelines for documenting configuration criteria for the public safety 
workers.  Why not AVOID the whole expendature althogeather for the 
governement, and still accomplish public safety, when WISP can already 
donate the service?  Better yet, why not jsut grant the public safety budget 
to WISPs to expand their network, to accommodate public safety needs.  Lets 
see the RUS grant get substituted with the Public safety grant.


But auction? I don't see how that could benefit anyone.  Communications is a 
necessary utility, not a luxury to auction off for a special interest.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum 
foremergency responders




Snip/
Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum for emergency responders 
came after Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) 
called for Congress to move forward on legislation that would free up 
radio spectrum by requiring television stations to switch from analog to 
digital broadcasts. A move to digital television (DTV) would free up 
spectrum in the upper 700-MHz radio frequency band for commercial and 
public safety uses. The FCC has said it would give 24 MHz of that spectrum 
to public safety users and auction off 60 MHz for commercial uses. /snip


http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2005/092205-fcc-katrina.html?nl&code=nledgenewsalert7636





I got an idea, why don't they just open it up to wisps all across the 
country, let us use ths spectrum for what we are now doing and then in the 
event of another disaster, there will already be gear in place to keep 
everyone going?


George


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting

[Tom DeReggi]

Matt,

Interesting Post. Asterix is great to terminate the VOIP calls, but 
eventually it needs to be interfaced with a Gateway provider or the public 
PBX network. What do you plan to use for that? You are not a CLEC are you?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISP-Related Topics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Some VOIP Experimenting



Hello all,

I've been doing some experimenting with VOIP and asterisk over my wireless 
network and came up with a few general observations that I thought might 
be useful for those of you looking at voip and how it impacts your 
network:


1)  My test voip server is a P3 550 with 512MB of memory.  I installed 
Fedora Core 3 and AMP (Asterisk Management Portal - available from 
http://amp.voxbox.ca).   This provides a very straightforward web based 
interface for configuring Asterisk, but is not without a few bugs - more 
on that later.


2)  I am using accounts from Nufone and Teliax to do my beta testing. 
Nufone has been around longer and has a reputation for being very solid 
technically, but does not have much for online assistance.  Teliax has 
excellent online resources, and also has local numbers in many places.  I 
was quite surprised to find out that they had local numbers in my small 
town in Nebraska.  Nufone works, but I think that Teliax may be worth a 
little extra just to get the better support resources and access to more 
local numbers.
3)  I am using a Sipura SPA-2000 two line adapter at home to do my 
testing.  With some experimentation, I was able to get this adapter to 
work through NAT.
4)  My home connection is limited to 1024K down/512K upload and connects 
to a StarOS access point.  My home CPE is a WRAP board with a CM9 card 
running in 802.11b mode.  The StarOS AP has 200+ customers on it, is 
located 8 miles away and has approximately 80 customers on the sector that 
services my house.  The VOIP server is two hops from my home, and average 
latency to it is 10ms.   There is no QOS on the network.  The telephone in 
the house is a Panasonic 2.4Ghz Frequency hopping phone, and it sits next 
to a Ezy Net radio in client mode that connects to my home access point. 
I use an IPCop firewall box.  The  IPCop box is an older version that 
doesn't have the QOS shaping available.


4)  Initial testing was with the G711 (aka ulaw) codec that is standard on 
the Sipura and also a standard codec in Asterisk.   This  codec  used 
80KB up , and  about 80KB down when a two way conversation was going.  On 
this heavily loaded AP, this was a bit of  a problem, but it was usable. 
I was able to carry on a one hour conversation with only a minimum of 
noticeable breakup one night, and the next day I had another conversation 
that deteriorated rapidly.  Downloading also seemed to affect the 
connection quite a bit.


5)  Second round of testing was with an iaxComm softphone.  The softphone 
connected with the GSM codec and used  15 to 25KB during conversation. 
Audio quality seemed to be pretty good, but it was hard to tell becuase I 
do not have a headset on my PC - I was dependent on the built-in speakers 
and microphone.
6)  Final round of testing was with the Sipura adapter after I was able to 
get the G729 codec operational on the Asterisk box.  By setting the Sipura 
to only use G729, traffic was 24KB up and 24KB down during two way 
conversation.  Audio quality was not quite as good as with G711,  but 
there were fewer breakups and even with a large download going, it was 
still usable.


5)  AMP has a few bugs, namely with the provisioning of inbound numbers. 
Everything looks right on the web page, but sometimes the configs work and 
sometimes they do not.  I have a trouble ticket in with them on my support 
contract so that hopefully I can get to the bottom of the problem.  Other 
than this, AMP is an excellent front-end for asterisk and I am pretty 
confident that I could put 100 or so users on this system and manage them 
without a lot of problems.   After that point it will be time for a real 
server that is integrated into my billing and accounting systems, but for 
experimenting and doing proof of case, this one will work just fine.


Conclusions so far:

-  Asterisk is pretty decent for testing out voip and doing small scale 
implementations.  I'm pretty sure that it will scale a lot larger and do 
more, but will also get more complex to manage
-  Teliax is great for ITSP services and is very asterisk friendly. 
http://www.teliax.com/
-  AMP is nice, but has a few bugs.  The 1.10.008 version may be a bit 
more stable than the latest version (1.10.009) but lacks a few important 
features if you are intending to do some beta testing to customers or 
reselling.
-  G729 codec is far superior to G711 over 802.11b wireless.  GSM is also 

[WISPA] Lightning protecting WRAPs

[Tom DeReggi]

What are people doing for WRAP board lightning protection?

Basically the WRAP board has a part that blows up, if it receives more than 
21 Volts to its DC input.
So a typical CAT5 Lightning protector that protects the DC pairs at only 
35V, 50V or 60V would pretty much be useless for protecting the WRAP over 
the DC lines.


Any Protectors on the market that start to clamp at 20V DC?  I'm guessing 
most people are just going without lightning protections, and settling for 
UPS protection on the AC line?


What about the COAX/antenna side? If installing the WRAP radio up on a 
tower, with an external antenna with a 3 foot Caox cable to it, are you 
guys, springing for the COAX lighting protector?


For a several 10 ft run down a tower, of course the COAX protection should 
be used, but for a 3 ft run?


I like the WRAP boards, but the 21V max tolerance, I think could end up 
being a major flaw for wide scale deployment.
What are others finding?  I like the design of the Mikrotik 532's better, 
but to standardize on it, I need to know that there is more than one 
distributor/reseller of the product nationwide.  Hopefully the production 
will improve once the product becomes more mainstream.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrumforemergency responders

[Tom DeReggi]

Does any one have a spare Mikrotik 532, for sale? From what I heard they are 
still about a month out on availabilty. I'd love to get a jump on one, so 
that we can pre-test our OS on it, while we are waiting for volume product 
to come in.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] Mikrotik and VLANs

[Tom DeReggi]

Has anyone tested Mikrotik's VLAN support over the Wireless ports (Atheros) 
for large packet support (1500 bytes + additional bytes for VLAN )?


I know that you can't layer VLAN on top of two pre-existed bridged ports, 
its a limitation of Linux. But you can bridge a VLAN interface/port to 
another interface without a problem. The question is can one of those two 
ports be a Atheros wifi port?  I need the support to be supported on unots 
at both sides of the link, AP and SU.


Example config

Cell router provision clients to route to VLAN -->  Out a Trango AP.
In a Trango SU --> Trango Ethernet direct to Ethernet on WRAP, and WRAPboard 
w/ Atheros configured as AP.

Note: must pass 1504 byte packets.
In a WRAPBoard w/Atheros configured as Subscriber --> Must pass VLAN 1504 
packets.
Out WRAP Ethernet port ---> SMC VLAN Switch.  SMC set to untag VLAN port 
going to customer's suite, and Tag packets comming from custoemr's suites. 
Multiple tenants and VLANs behind SMC switch.


Ultimately the plan, is to replace the WRAP board and SMC switch with a 
single Mikrotik 532 board w/ 6 port Ethrnet Daughterboard.  532 board would 
then become a SMART VLAN switch, and do the tagging and untagging.


So the question is, can this configuration be supported across the Wifi 
interfaces?


If not, anyone available tommorrow on a consultant basis, to test this 
configuration for me? If so contact me off list.


Also on a side note: Anyone successfully get a Station Server client to talk 
to a Mikrotik AP using WPA encryption?
So far ahve not been successful in gettin them to talk, although WEP worked 
fine between devices.  Using CM9s for testing, and WRAP E boards w/ 2 eth 
ports.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio 
frequencyspectrumforemergency responders



Does any one have a spare Mikrotik 532, for sale? From what I heard they 
are still about a month out on availabilty. I'd love to get a jump on one, 
so that we can pre-test our OS on it, while we are waiting for volume 
product to come in.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum foremergency responders

[k claffy]

[not reading this list regularly, but tom hit a nerve]:

tom et al

caida (www.caida.org) is an internet data analysis/research organization
whose mission includes informing public policy, aimed toward improving
policy 'toward congruence' with our best empirical (scientifically grounded)
understanding of the relevant technological issues/constraints/parameters.

i am no expert on spectrum policy, but afaict the difference between
having huge effect and having no effect is sufficiently formalized
reporting/analysis of Real World Operational Experiences (this means
you), written in way that will convey to scientists (this means me), as
well as to the public, what happens when technology gets deployed in
reality.  one underutilized option is collaborating with university
researchers to quantitatively document (1) potential deliverables under
various regulatory scenaraios (2) successes and failures under existing
regulatory scenarios.

caida Really wants to help support forward motion here, but we are
desperately lacking hard data.  emergency situations are obviously not
the time to talk about research, but i want to make it clear that if you
still don't have what you want by the time this emergency is over, please
don't underestimate the value of hard data and careful articulation
of the experiences you have had, so that scientists can come in and help
compile them into comprehensive and unassailable demonstrations to their
funding agencies of why change is essential.  

i believe the right kind of analyses/reporting could reduce the
length of this fight from 10 years to 2.  (ok, maybe 20 to 4...)
 
but the research community and the deployment communities are going 
to have to [find time and resources] to work together. we've never
needed eachother more.

k


On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:18:55PM -0400, Tom DeReggi wrote:
  "Auction", I hate that evil word.
  
  Really guys, if there is any time to hammer congressional legislators and 
  Home land security personelle, NOW is the time.  Before our precious 
  spectrum is auctioned off to the special interets.  Auctioning off 700Mhz 
  to a major IELC could be the death of independent rural WISPs.
  
  I got an idea, why don't they give the FULL 700Mhz to the 700 ISPs, spread 
  out decentrally across the country, and in trade all 7000 WISPs will give 
  FREE access / priority access to public safety officials as needed.  
  (except public safety buy's their own CPEs).  Instantly the staff of 7000 
  ISPs across the country available for disaster relief. it would be like the 
  Navy reserves but instead the WISP reserves.
  
  Basically anyone that is granted a non-exclusive license of 700Mhz must 
  first register as a volunteer emergency communications AID, and conform to 
  guidelines for documenting configuration criteria for the public safety 
  workers.  Why not AVOID the whole expendature althogeather for the 
  governement, and still accomplish public safety, when WISP can already 
  donate the service?  Better yet, why not jsut grant the public safety 
  budget to WISPs to expand their network, to accommodate public safety 
  needs.  Lets see the RUS grant get substituted with the Public safety grant.
  
  But auction? I don't see how that could benefit anyone.  Communications is 
  a necessary utility, not a luxury to auction off for a special interest.
  
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: "WISPA General List" 
  Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:06 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum 
  foremergency responders
  
  
  >Snip/
  >Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum for emergency responders 
  >came after Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) 
  >called for Congress to move forward on legislation that would free up 
  >radio spectrum by requiring television stations to switch from analog to 
  >digital broadcasts. A move to digital television (DTV) would free up 
  >spectrum in the upper 700-MHz radio frequency band for commercial and 
  >public safety uses. The FCC has said it would give 24 MHz of that spectrum 
  >to public safety users and auction off 60 MHz for commercial uses. /snip
  >
  
>http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2005/092205-fcc-katrina.html?nl&code=nledgenewsalert7636
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >I got an idea, why don't they just open it up to wisps all across the 
  >country, let us use ths spectrum for what we are now doing and then in the 
  >event of another disaster, there will already be gear in place to keep 
  >everyone going?
  >
  >George
  >
  >
  >-- 
  >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  >
  >Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  >
  >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  >
  >
  >-- 
  >No virus found in this incoming message.
  >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >Version: 7.0.

Re: [WISPA] Lightning protecting WRAPs

[Blair Davis]

I am using a DC to DC converter with each of my WRAPs so they are 
powered with the Lucent standard 48V POE.  The D-Link 5V/12V switchable 
POE units work fine for this.


I use flooded, shielded, with drain wire, outdoor CAT5 cable.  (about 
$75 for 1000ft)  I tie the drain wire to the coax and WRAP board ground 
topside.  I ground the coax to the tower/antenna mount.  Ground the 
drain wire at the power injector.


Since doing this, I have had NO WRAP failures, and no spike induced 
lockups that require a power off/on cycle. 

Using this in other locations, (non WRAP) seems to have eliminated the 
need for POE/ethernet surge protectors..


We have had several major thunderstorm systems go thru since then.  I 
have not lost any equipment at locations I have done this at.  We used 
to loose a WRAP or 2 with each major storm front.


Note that shielded CAT5 doesn't seem to be good enough.  The drain wire 
seems to be required.


Blair

Tom DeReggi wrote:


What are people doing for WRAP board lightning protection?

Basically the WRAP board has a part that blows up, if it receives more 
than 21 Volts to its DC input.
So a typical CAT5 Lightning protector that protects the DC pairs at 
only 35V, 50V or 60V would pretty much be useless for protecting the 
WRAP over the DC lines.


Any Protectors on the market that start to clamp at 20V DC?  I'm 
guessing most people are just going without lightning protections, and 
settling for UPS protection on the AC line?


What about the COAX/antenna side? If installing the WRAP radio up on a 
tower, with an external antenna with a 3 foot Caox cable to it, are 
you guys, springing for the COAX lighting protector?


For a several 10 ft run down a tower, of course the COAX protection 
should be used, but for a 3 ft run?


I like the WRAP boards, but the 21V max tolerance, I think could end 
up being a major flaw for wide scale deployment.
What are others finding?  I like the design of the Mikrotik 532's 
better, but to standardize on it, I need to know that there is more 
than one distributor/reseller of the product nationwide.  Hopefully 
the production will improve once the product becomes more mainstream.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Martin's call for more radio frequency spectrum foremergency responders

[John Scrivner]

I see you have made your introduction K.  :-)   I think you guys will 
find this lady's enthusiasm toward policy change to be no less than 
revolutionary. She has an eye toward a complete rework of the FCC (as in 
destroy it and rebuild governance of spectrum and policy from the ground 
up) to allow for more progressive spectrum and related policy. I have 
explained that we are all still attempting a more standard approach to 
working within the framework of our existing system a little longer 
before we are ready to start burning the FCC at the stake. While there 
would be a certain pleasure in seeing the system rebuilt from scratch it 
would be of little use if it ended up being rebuilt by people who do not 
care about our needs as an industry. At least some policy bodes well for 
us now or we would not even be talking here today.


One thing K definitely drives home is a need by our industry to 
intelligently tell our story and allow for scientific studies and other 
varied resources to back up our claims. We need support like this. We 
live in a time where the NAB is creating video propaganda saying 
unlicensed use of television channels will make grandma's TV stop 
working. I am not exaggerating. We need some powerful varied input from 
operators, manufacturers, scientists, universities, related 
organizations like New America, Part-15 and Media Access, etc. We all 
have common goals here regarding the need of good quality lower 
frequency spectrum like unused television channels. We do not want to 
see the communications status quo of this country destroy innovation and 
growth of our potential uses for technology, specifically unlicensed 
wireless broadband in our case, within the United States.


Our industry is one of the last havens for telecommunications innovation 
that is not tied directly to the RBOCs in this country. We represent the 
only way for middle class America to own and operate broadband in this 
country. All the other options require millions to get in the game. We 
had all better think very hard about what is required of us to stop the 
erosion of all we have worked for in the last couple of years. With 
stalled rulings in 3650 and unused television channels it seems obvious 
that the FCC has an agenda that does include us currently. Indeed I 
believe we are in a time where RBOCs and other mega-sized interests hold 
the power within the FCC.


Why do I say this? Well K made something blatantly clear to me. The FCC 
may be in transition and one could argue they are acting slowly on 
policy change to gauge the new direction but we did not see any delay 
from our new FCC when it came to snubbing VOIP with a demand that they 
have 911 right away. It should not be ignored that the cellular industry 
was given decades to meet this criteria without demands of compliance 
while the fledgling VOIP industry has a heavy-handed demand placed on it 
before the industry even has legs. I am sure Pulver is just 
tickled to death . We need him on this list. Does anyone know 
him very well? I have met him and I know we are a part of his "tribe".


So K why don't you take a little time to read what you see here and let 
us know how we can better tell our story or at least do a better job of 
getting you the raw data you would need to help us get the spectrum we 
so desperately need to serve America. Those television channels would be 
a revolution for us. We need at least part of those channels to 
completely change the face of wireless broadband in this country. We can 
make it happen. The tools are out there ready to go. We just need the 
permission from the FCC to jump off the starting line. I thank you K for 
trying to use your skills to help us all see this goal realized.

John Scrivner



k claffy wrote:


[not reading this list regularly, but tom hit a nerve]:

tom et al

caida (www.caida.org) is an internet data analysis/research organization
whose mission includes informing public policy, aimed toward improving
policy 'toward congruence' with our best empirical (scientifically grounded)
understanding of the relevant technological issues/constraints/parameters.

i am no expert on spectrum policy, but afaict the difference between
having huge effect and having no effect is sufficiently formalized
reporting/analysis of Real World Operational Experiences (this means
you), written in way that will convey to scientists (this means me), as
well as to the public, what happens when technology gets deployed in
reality.  one underutilized option is collaborating with university
researchers to quantitatively document (1) potential deliverables under
various regulatory scenaraios (2) successes and failures under existing
regulatory scenarios.

caida Really wants to help support forward motion here, but we are
desperately lacking hard data.  emergency situations are obviously not
the time to talk about research, but i want to make it clear that if you
still don't have what you want by the time this emerg

Re: [WISPA] Lightning protecting WRAPs

[Tom DeReggi]

Blair,

I am using a DC to DC converter with each of my WRAPs so they are powered 
with the Lucent standard 48V POE.  The D-Link 5V/12V switchable POE units 
work fine for this.


I take it then that the D-Link 12V Poe terminator then acts sorta like a 
fuse or barrier between the WRAP and the 48V POE.  How do you get the Dlink 
12V POE terminator inside the radio case? Does it just hang inside? What is 
that combination POE costing you?


I use flooded, shielded, with drain wire, outdoor CAT5 cable.  (about $75 
for 1000ft)  I tie the drain wire to the coax and WRAP board ground 
topside.  I ground the coax to the tower/antenna mount.  Ground the drain 
wire at the power injector.


Great idea, using the drain wire cable.  What brand cable do you use, that 
only costs $75 a spool?


I'm paying about $265 for Superior Essex without a drain wire.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc

Since doing this, I have had NO WRAP failures, and no spike induced 
lockups that require a power off/on cycle.
Using this in other locations, (non WRAP) seems to have eliminated the 
need for POE/ethernet surge protectors..


We have had several major thunderstorm systems go thru since then.  I have 
not lost any equipment at locations I have done this at.  We used to loose 
a WRAP or 2 with each major storm front.


Note that shielded CAT5 doesn't seem to be good enough.  The drain wire 
seems to be required.


Blair

Tom DeReggi wrote:


What are people doing for WRAP board lightning protection?

Basically the WRAP board has a part that blows up, if it receives more 
than 21 Volts to its DC input.
So a typical CAT5 Lightning protector that protects the DC pairs at only 
35V, 50V or 60V would pretty much be useless for protecting the WRAP over 
the DC lines.


Any Protectors on the market that start to clamp at 20V DC?  I'm guessing 
most people are just going without lightning protections, and settling 
for UPS protection on the AC line?


What about the COAX/antenna side? If installing the WRAP radio up on a 
tower, with an external antenna with a 3 foot Caox cable to it, are you 
guys, springing for the COAX lighting protector?


For a several 10 ft run down a tower, of course the COAX protection 
should be used, but for a 3 ft run?


I like the WRAP boards, but the 21V max tolerance, I think could end up 
being a major flaw for wide scale deployment.
What are others finding?  I like the design of the Mikrotik 532's better, 
but to standardize on it, I need to know that there is more than one 
distributor/reseller of the product nationwide.  Hopefully the production 
will improve once the product becomes more mainstream.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/