RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread G.Villarini
Change to Motorola Canopy ! ducking !

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.767.7466

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 
yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode.  The 
radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. 
All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off.

Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps,

and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU)

This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput 
(for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   Then through in 
longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), 
retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be

much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog 
up channels.

My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the 
WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing 
speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost

ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent 
availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc),

What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for 
small community projects?

802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a

$50 cost per radio card added.
3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).

#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss 
the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval.

My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 
degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 
802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU side, I would

normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, 
apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports 
including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building.

But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN 
switch  would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with 
maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two 
devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote 
reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical

VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use VLAN 
support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from seeing other end

users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth 
manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs

and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in

advance.   3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other 
users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it 
can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected.

 I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out

how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd 
argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the 
project.

Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a 
Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because

large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN 
custoemrs to untag

In summary...

1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP 
line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home

brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type 
projects.  It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB?  That sure seems low.  You
either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with
antenna or cabling.  A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you
-40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling.

Did you set the distance to a couple of miles?  I always figure out
the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it.  You can safely be over but to
be under limits throughput severely.

Lonnie



On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300
 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode.  The
 radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29.
 All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off.

 Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps,
 and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

 I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU)

 This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput
 (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   Then through in
 longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure),
 retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be
 much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog
 up channels.

 My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the
 WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing
 speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

 For those interested

 My business decission question is:

 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
 4) Trango has better testing tools
 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost
 ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent
 availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc),

 What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for
 small community projects?

 802.11 Atheros gives you...

 1) Mesh designs
 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a
 $50 cost per radio card added.
 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly
 adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).

 #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss
 the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval.

 My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building /
 multi-tenant complex.
 I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range),
 apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60
 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik
 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU side, I would
 normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building,
 apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports
 including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building.
 But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN
 switch  would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with
 maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two
 devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote
 reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical
 VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use VLAN
 support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from seeing other end
 users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth
 manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs
 and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in
 advance.   3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other
 users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it
 can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected.

  I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out
 how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd
 argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the
 project.

 Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a
 Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because
 large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN
 custoemrs to untag

 In summary...

 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP
 line, like the 900APs, it would 

Re: [WISPA] MRTG

2005-10-10 Thread Brian Rohrbacher

Ok, so I have got it working.  Should I graph bytes or bits?

Brian
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] MRTG

2005-10-10 Thread Aubrey Wells
I find bits to be more useful simply because we sell packages based 
around bits (1.5Mbit, 3Mbit, 10Mbit, etc). Graphing in bits lets me look 
at the graphs and quickly determine the amount of throughput a given 
user or link is getting in relation to what I sold them. If it were 
graphed in bytes I would have to think about it for a minute and do some 
math.


--
Aubrey Wells
AirInfinite
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
o: (404) 601.1407
f: (404) 601.1408
c: (770) 356.9767



Brian Rohrbacher wrote:


Ok, so I have got it working.  Should I graph bytes or bits?

Brian



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread George

The wraps have a limitation, maybe the client does as well.

Turn on the advanced features and it will go more speed.

Buy WAR boads and StarVX and go TWICE as fast or use HALF the channel space.

George



Tom DeReggi wrote:
I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 
yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode.  The 
radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. 
All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off.


Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.


I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to 
SU)


This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   
Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or 
CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know 
real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of course Turbo 
Mode won't be used to hog up channels.


My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or 
the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher 
processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?


For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that 
cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, 
consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc),


What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even 
for small community projects?


802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with 
only a $50 cost per radio card added.

3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).


#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to 
discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top 
approval.


My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 
60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, 
Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU 
side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for 
EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card 
(total of 9 ports including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 
subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building 
project, the savings for a VLAN switch  would add up quick to around 
$1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the 
CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE 
Router).  It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the 
Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would 
not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use VLAN support for 
several reasons.  1) it protects end users from seeing other end users 
for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage 
and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs 
and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be 
known in advance.   3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from 
effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic 
doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only 
gets effected.


I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure 
out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring 
revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN 
switches to the project.


Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use 
a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, 
because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on 
the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag


In summary...

1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP 
line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of 
home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these 
type projects.  It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then 
again so what.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Matt Liotta
Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If 
so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear 
guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 
300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU 
mode.  The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a 
quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and 
encryption turned off.


Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.


I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP 
to SU)


This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   
Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or 
CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you 
know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of 
course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels.


My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, 
or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher 
processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?


For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew 
that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, 
pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote 
management, ARQ, etc),


What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even 
for small community projects?


802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with 
only a $50 cost per radio card added.

3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).


#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to 
discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top 
approval.


My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a 
Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex 
placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP 
side.  On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN 
switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for 
Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532).  Many 
complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an 
example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch  would 
add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance 
of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices 
(VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote reboot 
devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical 
VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use 
VLAN support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from 
seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly 
centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed 
to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change 
over time, or may not be known in advance.   3) Prevents customer's 
misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. 
Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The 
misconfigured client only gets effected.


I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, 
figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling 
reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying 
Trango and VLAN switches to the project.


Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to 
use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same 
time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN 
device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag


In summary...

1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 
5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the 
justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use 
Trango for these type projects.  It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost 
reductions, but then again so what.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message 

Re: [WISPA] MRTG

2005-10-10 Thread Brian Rohrbacher
I set up like 10 different IPs (build config) but it's only graphing the 
last one.


Aubrey Wells wrote:

I find bits to be more useful simply because we sell packages based 
around bits (1.5Mbit, 3Mbit, 10Mbit, etc). Graphing in bits lets me 
look at the graphs and quickly determine the amount of throughput a 
given user or link is getting in relation to what I sold them. If it 
were graphed in bytes I would have to think about it for a minute and 
do some math.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread G.Villarini
That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on
the pcb ...

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.767.7466

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If 
so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear 
guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear.

-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 
 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU 
 mode.  The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a 
 quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and 
 encryption turned off.

 Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

 I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP 
 to SU)

 This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
 throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   
 Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or 
 CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you 
 know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of 
 course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels.

 My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, 
 or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher 
 processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

 For those interested

 My business decission question is:

 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
 4) Trango has better testing tools
 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew 
 that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, 
 pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote 
 management, ARQ, etc),

 What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even 
 for small community projects?

 802.11 Atheros gives you...

 1) Mesh designs
 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with 
 only a $50 cost per radio card added.
 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
 adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).

 #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to 
 discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top 
 approval.

 My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
 multi-tenant complex.
 I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
 apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a 
 Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex 
 placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP 
 side.  On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN 
 switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for 
 Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532).  Many 
 complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an 
 example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch  would 
 add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance 
 of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices 
 (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote reboot 
 devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical 
 VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use 
 VLAN support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from 
 seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly 
 centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed 
 to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change 
 over time, or may not be known in advance.   3) Prevents customer's 
 misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. 
 Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The 
 misconfigured client only gets effected.

 I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, 
 figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling 
 reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying 
 Trango and VLAN switches to the project.

 Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to 
 use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same 
 time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN 
 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Matt Liotta
That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax 
jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as 
opposed to N.


-Matt

G.Villarini wrote:


That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx jacks on
the pcb ...

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.767.7466

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If 
so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear 
guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

 

I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 
300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU 
mode.  The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a 
quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and 
encryption turned off.


Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.


I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP 
to SU)


This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   
Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or 
CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you 
know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of 
course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels.


My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, 
or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher 
processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?


For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew 
that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, 
pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote 
management, ARQ, etc),


What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even 
for small community projects?


802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with 
only a $50 cost per radio card added.

3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).


#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to 
discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top 
approval.


My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a 
Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex 
placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP 
side.  On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN 
switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for 
Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532).  Many 
complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an 
example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch  would 
add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance 
of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices 
(VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote reboot 
devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical 
VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support.  We use 
VLAN support for several reasons.  1) it protects end users from 
seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly 
centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed 
to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change 
over time, or may not be known in advance.   3) Prevents customer's 
misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. 
Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The 
misconfigured client only gets effected.


I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, 
figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling 
reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying 
Trango and VLAN switches to the project.


Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to 
use a 

RE: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread David E. Smith

 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about
 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU
 mode.  The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a
 quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and
 encryption turned off.

 Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6
 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

Sounds about right, give or take a couple Mbps. I've got one link
consisting of two WRAP boards, StarOS/WRAP edition, with CM-9 radio cards.
Signal is about -60, noise floats around the mid-90s. The two endpoints
are probably about 1/4 mile apart.

StarOS's integrated bandwidth test shows about 14Mbps each way. (You have
to do both send and receive tests, from both units, to get good average
numbers, because sending the packets seems to seriously stress those
little tiny CPUs.)

In my experience, it seems as though StarOS' numbers are very optimistic
(anywhere from 10% to 25% higher than real-world traffic). Having never
sniffed the traffic or anything, I'd guess that the bandwidth test uses
large packets (maybe even jumbo packets), but real-world IP traffic has a
lot of smaller packets, and the per-packet overhead brings down total
performance. (This is part of why many people are fond of Mikrotik's
proprietary Nstreme extension - if you can live with a couple extra
milliseconds of latency, you can get substantially better throughput by
bundling all those tiny VOIP and UDP packets together.)

When using the StarOS built-in tester, the sending unit's CPU will hit
100%, and the receiver's CPU hits 75% or higher, on WRAP boards. This
implies that the CPU may be the bottleneck, not the radio card or the OS.

 My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset,
 or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher
 processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

Get back to me in a week or two on that. :) I've gotten my hands on a
couple RB532s, and a couple extra CM-9s. Admittedly, it won't be a
completely fair test, since the RouterBoards will be running RouterOS, so
it's not a perfect comparison to Valemount's StarOS. But it's the best I
can do.

Since the WRAPs don't have that much horsepower to begin with, in relative
terms, and since these tests pegs the CPU gauge, I suspect CPU is the
limiting factor, but I don't have any hard numbers to back this up either
way.

Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified
StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? For that matter, anyone ever just
slapped a miniPCI-PCI converter in some cheap Dell desktop and slammed
packets through it?

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Tom DeReggi

Oops...

I'm using 5.3G with 19 dbi antenna, estimating 2 db in cable loss, to meet 
legal 30db limit. At a half mile, we calculated it to be -54db, and at 1/4 
mile -48.


However, I was reading the power in station server wrong, I was reading the 
Ack strength instead of Data strength which were about 10 db different.  Any 
reason for that? The data signal strength was actually reading about -60 db.


So yes, you are right, for a 1/4 mile there is about an unaccounted for 12 
db loss, unless I don't have the distance right.  I do have set at 1 mile in 
driver.


However, low signal doesn't effect speed, my tech has a second radio on it 
now, at -53 db, and still maxes out at 12mbps.  I confirmed that CPU usage 
hits about 95% when testing, and connection tracking is on.  So appears to 
be CPU limited.


Anyone know how much loss to expect out of the PacWireless Rootenna pigtails 
(ufl to SMA) and Wisp-router's 6Ghz certified 5 Ufl to N pigtails?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532


300 yards with LOS with a signal of -70 dB?  That sure seems low.  You
either have another system real close or you have severe trouble with
antenna or cabling.  A Superpass 21 dB at that range would give you
-40 dB or better signals, assuming proper cabling.

Did you set the distance to a couple of miles?  I always figure out
the exact number and add 2 or 3 to it.  You can safely be over but to
be under limits throughput severely.

Lonnie



On 10/10/05, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300
yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode.  The
radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29.
All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off.

Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
mbps,

and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to 
SU)


This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
throughput
(for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario.   Then through 
in

longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure),
retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can 
be
much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to 
hog

up channels.

My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or 
the

WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing
speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that 
cost

ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent
availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc),

What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for
small community projects?

802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only 
a

$50 cost per radio card added.
3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).

#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss
the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval.

My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building /
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range),
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 
60

degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik
802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU side, I 
would

normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building,
apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports
including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per 
building.

But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN
switch  would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with
maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two
devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also reduces costs for remote
reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a 
typical

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Tom DeReggi
Actually, I also have made the mods in the past.  My point is the 
manufacturer should make the mods.  Maybe they will someday, if they keep 
hearing justification spelled out.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532


Sounds like you just want an external antenna jack on the Access5830. If 
so, you might consider doing something similar to what the LastMileGear 
guys do with the Canopy 5.7 gear.


-Matt

Tom DeReggi wrote:

I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 
yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode.  The 
radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. 
All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off.


Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 
mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.


I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to 
SU)


This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real 
throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. 
Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS 
to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real 
throughput can be much less than 10 mbps.  Asumming of course Turbo Mode 
won't be used to hog up channels.


My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or 
the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher 
processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?


For those interested

My business decission question is:

1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and...
2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have)
3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so)
4) Trango has better testing tools
5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that 
cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, 
consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc),


What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for 
small community projects?


802.11 Atheros gives you...

1) Mesh designs
2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with 
only a $50 cost per radio card added.

3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config.
4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532daughter card.
5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed.
6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly 
adaptabilty (pending antenna swap).


#2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to 
discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top 
approval.


My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / 
multi-tenant complex.
I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), 
apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 
60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, 
Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side.  On the MTU 
side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH 
building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total 
of 9 ports including RB532).  Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers 
per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the 
savings for a VLAN switch  would add up quick to around $1100, and adding 
simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN 
combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router).  It also 
reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware 
watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not.  We use WDS to 
accomplish VLAN support.  We use VLAN support for several reasons.  1) it 
protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows 
us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per 
customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the 
need to change over time, or may not be known in advance.   3) Prevents 
customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router 
configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The 
misconfigured client only gets effected.


I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure 
out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, 
I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches 
to the project.


Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a 
Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, 
because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the 

Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
Our test uses large packets and TCP.  The problem is that the
bandwidth tester consumes a lot of the CPU, so the solution is to test
between machines on the edges, and thus get the true throughput
without the limitations of CPU speed.

Lots of guys have used desktop machines and found that the actually
Atheros output can exceed 100 mbps in Turbo mode.  Of course that sort
of test cannot be done through an Ethernet, it is radio to radio.

The advanced features of the Atheros cards will do packet aggregation
for the system.  Thus you will not notice any system trouble with a
bunch of small packets as you get with VOIP and gaming.  That type of
traffic can bring a Prism system to its knees.

The new StarVx also honours the VOIP priority bits in the headers.

Lonnie


On 10/10/05, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about
  300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU
  mode.  The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a
  quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and
  encryption turned off.
 
  Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6
  mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps.

 Sounds about right, give or take a couple Mbps. I've got one link
 consisting of two WRAP boards, StarOS/WRAP edition, with CM-9 radio cards.
 Signal is about -60, noise floats around the mid-90s. The two endpoints
 are probably about 1/4 mile apart.

 StarOS's integrated bandwidth test shows about 14Mbps each way. (You have
 to do both send and receive tests, from both units, to get good average
 numbers, because sending the packets seems to seriously stress those
 little tiny CPUs.)

 In my experience, it seems as though StarOS' numbers are very optimistic
 (anywhere from 10% to 25% higher than real-world traffic). Having never
 sniffed the traffic or anything, I'd guess that the bandwidth test uses
 large packets (maybe even jumbo packets), but real-world IP traffic has a
 lot of smaller packets, and the per-packet overhead brings down total
 performance. (This is part of why many people are fond of Mikrotik's
 proprietary Nstreme extension - if you can live with a couple extra
 milliseconds of latency, you can get substantially better throughput by
 bundling all those tiny VOIP and UDP packets together.)

 When using the StarOS built-in tester, the sending unit's CPU will hit
 100%, and the receiver's CPU hits 75% or higher, on WRAP boards. This
 implies that the CPU may be the bottleneck, not the radio card or the OS.

  My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset,
  or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher
  processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate?

 Get back to me in a week or two on that. :) I've gotten my hands on a
 couple RB532s, and a couple extra CM-9s. Admittedly, it won't be a
 completely fair test, since the RouterBoards will be running RouterOS, so
 it's not a perfect comparison to Valemount's StarOS. But it's the best I
 can do.

 Since the WRAPs don't have that much horsepower to begin with, in relative
 terms, and since these tests pegs the CPU gauge, I suspect CPU is the
 limiting factor, but I don't have any hard numbers to back this up either
 way.

 Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified
 StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? For that matter, anyone ever just
 slapped a miniPCI-PCI converter in some cheap Dell desktop and slammed
 packets through it?

 David Smith
 MVN.net
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread George

Ahhh you've never cracked one open to see what's inside?

Ask Gino, you have to take everything apart and see what makes it tick.

:)
George


Matt Liotta wrote:
That's good to know if for no other reason than to use better coax 
jumpers. It is really annoying that Trango uses RP-SMA connectors as 
opposed to N.


-Matt

G.Villarini wrote:

That's a easy mod, I have done it myself... Trango gear has a 2 mcx 
jacks on

the pcb ...





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread George


Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified
StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? 


David Smith
MVN.net


Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX.
Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig.

http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG

Other pics of various testing of the war boards:

http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/

George
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532

2005-10-10 Thread David E. Smith
George wrote:

 Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified
 StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)?

 Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX.
 Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig.

 http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG

Gah. Is that... a Windows GUI?

Just what I need, another interface to learn. Someone pester Lonnie and
tell him to make StarVX look like StarOS so I can just slap stuff in and
go. :D

David Smith
MVN.net
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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