RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a performance gain as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more interference resistant than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as stock 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from vendor products I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
froogle it, you see them from 49 - 69... :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Anyone using these successfully ? I don't mean 1 or 2 - but dozens that have been in service JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters froogle it, you see them from 49 - 69... :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Didnt like the phones but have not tried the ata's. Im sticking with the sipuras for now anyway. The are working great. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:23 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Anyone using these successfully ? I don't mean 1 or 2 - but dozens that have been in service JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters froogle it, you see them from 49 - 69... :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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 Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date: 6/21/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters
Johnny, the 496's have been out for only a matter of weeks, fyi... I've got 8 486's in operation, no problems to speak of. 5 of those on the same wireless network off my noc... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JohnnyO Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:23 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Anyone using these successfully ? I don't mean 1 or 2 - but dozens that have been in service JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters froogle it, you see them from 49 - 69... :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:39 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] ATA - SIP Adapters Rick Smith wrote: check THIS out. VOIP ATA / NAT router all in one. http://www.grandstream.com/y-ht496.htm Rick How much these things running you? I've been using the linksys ones but they are about 100.00 if I recall. George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing thebenefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through "fast-framing" -- e.g.,it looks like Nstream utilizescombination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amountSIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. Whatare the parameters forthe framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on this side w/ Nstream? 4. What about bursting? The DIF is another major point of "waste" in 802.11 systems. Is the DIFs automagically eliminated due to the fact that a point coordinator is being implemented or isthis done via the burst-time command under the wireless interface? If so, is there a way to turn this off for point-to-point situations to achieve better performance? -Charles P.S. -- Our testing of StarOS using WDS bridging on the 266 MHz IXP Boards is yielding ~36 Mb of TCP throughput on a single 20 Mhz channel (this is w/ bursting frame concatenation turned on) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their black box ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a bad solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a performance gain as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more interference resistant than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as stock 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :) Travis Microserv Charles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a "bad" solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware,
[WISPA] DUAL BAND antennas
Are there any dual band antennas for 900mhz and 5ghz? Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date: 06/21/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Motorola R56 standards
Does anyone know of a source for the Motorola R56 standards that I won't have to pay for? Anyone know of any libraries that may carry a recent version of this document? Patrick Shoemaker -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Looking for Trango Grommets and POE
Hi list. I have several 5800 Trangos that are missing the weather proofing Grommets and POE. If anyone can point me in a direction, other than factory, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Victoria Proffer www.StLouisBroadBand.com 314-974-5600 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Looking for Trango Grommets and POE
Thanks guys, had no clue for this. Peace ~V~ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for Trango Grommets and POE Hi, www.trangogear.com has PoE units (better than factory for less money). Travis Microserv Victoria wrote: Hi list. I have several 5800 Trangos that are missing the weather proofing Grommets and POE. If anyone can point me in a direction, other than factory, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Victoria Proffer www.StLouisBroadBand.com 314-974-5600 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49To: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing thebenefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through "fast-framing" -- e.g.,it looks like Nstream utilizescombination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amountSIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. Whatare the parameters forthe framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Stephen, Could you share retail pricing on your products? I don't see any pricing listed on your website. I'm sure many people (including myself) could be interested in getting more information, etc. but it's nice to see if the product is even close to the price range we are looking. Travis Microserv Stephen Patrick wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.png Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing thebenefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through "fast-framing" -- e.g.,it looks like Nstream utilizescombination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amountSIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. Whatare the parameters forthe framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to
Re: 911 compliance (was Re: [WISPA] VoIP as a service offering - Skype, Yahoo, MS)
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Matt Liotta wrote: That is incorrect. A POTS line will only be able to provide ANI/ALI information as configured by the LEC providing the POTS line, which will not match the subscriber's call that you are routing through it. However, according to what Matt Larsen described this ANI info will point to the business (and building) that the POTS line is installed in. Matt is not so much intercepting 911 traffic as he is directing 911 traffic. The example Matt listed was a business that purchased a phone system. This phone system happens to be an Asterisk system that has a POTS line terminated in it. Some traffic is routed via VoIP offerings available on the net, while other traffic is routed to the POTs line. The ANI/ALI would be the business location, since that is where it is installed. I'd say (though IANAL), this would be no different from installing a normal PBX in a building with some POTs lines and a T1 to another office (which may or may not have it's own POTs lines). You're not suggesting THOSE are illegal are you? -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
