Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
- Original Message - From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... > Well, lets really spice it up thenI'm going to stir the pot in this > direction for this post > > Alvarion has done a great job of producing a product that does an > excellent job delivering value to their customers and has several unique > features that will keep it on a different level above what the open > source/standard hardware crew will ever be capable of. They maintain > strict control over the hardware components and feel it is important to > keep continuity with their already existing products. There are some > valid technical reasons for doing things that way, and some equally > valid business reasons for having equipment that is non-standard. > Alvarion is in business TO MAKE MONEY - and they have done an excellent > job retaining value and delivering a consistently usable product to the > WISP industry while making money. This is not a hobby for them. Nobody here is saying it is.I just think they're a fish out of water when it comes to how fast the evolution of WISP and technology has become. BRIDGING a residential network? What the??? > > Mark, you unfortunately fall into the hardware trap of "humping your > radios" and spending a heck of a lot of time worrying about having the > neatest gadget for your wisp. I do? When? I spent a lot of time... A while back, picking what I'd go with for a while. I spend a lot more time sitting down and doing "what ifs" and comparing my roadmap to what appears to be the market and t he consumer. Far more than I fiddle with "goodies". You are in a rural area and don't have to > worry about issues of scale. If you continue to spend all that time > putting together each radio and trying to micromanage each customer > connection you will not scale beyond a couple hundred customers. Yah know, I'm going to spending longer doing paperwork tracking these things than I will putting them together. Fire it up, click, upload config file, save, set the AP for the c lient cpe and vice versa (funny, you gotta do this with everything ya buy) go hang it. I've gone from bare parts to full CPE in 15 minutes. That's configured for client's speed, put in the enclosure, and all the settings done. I wonder how long it takes to configure a VL product for use?Probably not much less. Again, I'm going to have more time in doing paperwork tracking serial numbers and parts and inventory than I will in "fiddling around". But then, there WILL be customer support issues just like I have now... When the dog chews the wire off the side of the house (who'd have thought the dog would get on top of the AC unit and chew a wire stapled under the lower edge of the siding ridge???) , or the customer unplugs everyting and plugs the wrong stuff into the wrong thing (more than once now).And don't tell me that dirty power has no effect on Trango or VL or whatever. Of c ourse it does. Or that the customer has blown his switch... (again) due to power surges and doesn't realize why he's "offline".These will happen with any product. They're just part of the human equation.Yes, I have had lightning losses. Yes, I did have a customer than turned her CPE on and off several times a day (no kidding!) because she thought that it was dangerous to leave it on and no amount of explaining wouild change her mind.And then... one day, it didn't come back on. > Alvarion has put together products that have a steeper initial learning > curve but are very flexible, very manageable and will scale. I know of > one Alvarion operator that is at 18,000 customers - you don't reach that > level putting your own CPEs together and requiring the high level of > installation skill to put a StarOS or MT based CPE into service. What high level of skill is that? I'd say it takes precisely EQUAL skill. It doesn't matter if you're putting up the equivalent of a space shuttle or kite on a string, it takes about the same amount of time. The "fiddlybits" have always been related to physical issues at the customer site, not cpe.The time involved in installs has been a vast majority of OTHER things, never problems with the cpe that weren't my own failure to do something really simple (like bring the box... duhh). You > might think that Alvarion and others are "Late to the Party" but you > have "Missed the Boat" when it comes to building your core business > around a scalable, manageable product. Really? How the bloody heck do you maintain even a modicum of QC on your network if you have residential customers putting in thier own router?Or do I pretend to be Qwest and say "if we didn't install it we don't support it"? I'm not even going to pretend I can have the c ustomer touch his router. For the few who did install thier own, th
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
Patrick, I hope you understand something... I have no animosity towards anyone... But I really do want to light a fire under people. Too many companies (even me at times) gets too stuck "in the box" and we forget to look beyond. >From our past conversations, you should realize what a large step it is for me to say I strongly consider your VL product under the Comnet program. But you have to understand that to do so has certain operational downsides for me as well. I'm not a mathmatician, but the way I see it, if my network backbone is 99% reliable, and my cpe is 99% reliable, I'm only 98% reliable. I have found that physical site issues have had far more to do with downtime and difficult installs, and customer issues, than the network at all. Generally, the network hums along wtihout intervention or attention. Customers do not. They forget passwords, they unplug stuff, they install home routers and put them on the same channel I'm on, they DO THESE THINGS. My issues have, in my unscientific estimation been: 1. Customer self-inflicted - perhaps about 20% of all things 2. Errors on my part (yeah, misconfiguring a router or other such bonehead goofs) - 15% 3. Downtime due to hardware failures: 10% - this includes power supplies, UPS, burned out batteries, etc sudden radio or networking equipment death that's really unexplained. 4. Physical failure of customer end equipment: 10%. Lightning and power issues. 5. acts of Nature: 5%. The rest is just... "stuff happens". breaker burns out and takes a circuit offline and I have no power to a remote site. Bugs got into a pc case and somehow or other managed to short out the ram. Power supply burned out or otherwise just croaked. ( 3 times in months ) Wire near the storage batteries somehow got exposed to acid and just parted at a random moment. Some uknown person fired up an extremely strong signal and took down the 5 ghz backhauls, and each time I moved to clear air, so did he. Then, the interference stopped mysteriously a couple months ago. My competitor and I have been unable to locate this interference, we communicated considerably on the topic, decided it seemed deliberate, but we never found the source. BTW, it took down his Trango stuff. Competitor pulled the CPE apart and managed to mangle putting it back together, taking the customer offline. So... If you have suggestions on how to cut down on the "stuff happens", that would do the most. Certainly, improved attention my part would elimenate 2, and some of 3 and possibly 4, I take my gambles, it's worked out. But if you're going to say that dramatically increased CPE quality or lifespan would transform my network's reliability... It won't. Improve? Of course. But no real big issue at the moment.yeah, I want better QOS for VOIP applications... but will my customers pay $15 more a month so I can buy them a router and higher end stuff? Probably not. So where do you thread the needle? If you had all the neato RF goodies and enhancements to the MAC, but also included routing and dynamic routing and DHCP and NAT and so on... Man, that would be one heck of a hard thing to resist. There would be no compromise other than dollars, and it's far eaiser, in my book, to compromise a small amount of dollars than it is certain fundamental network characteristics.Heck, at the lowest price you quote, there's no dollar issue to me, just a large hurdle for those smaller POP's (ap cost and some issues revolving around power consumption - my God, havn't you guys learned how to use lower power consumption stuff yet ). Heck, Trango and Motorola haven't even been considered, due to mostly the same thing. Someone asked me what I wanted that nearly 3 years ago when I was getting ready to put my first stuff up and I made a list. Someone filled the stuff on that list before you did. Now down the road with experience under my belt the only thing I really wish for that I don't have is better QOS capability for voip and a little better price. Would it really kill Alvarion to stop reinventing the wheel and base something on mass production in the outside world and apply thier skills to a full blown SOLUTION for residential use? Of course not.Are they even considering something with the capabilities of a WAR board cpe? I have my doubts.Are they stuck in the box? +++ neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington email me at mark at neofast dot net 541-969-8200 Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... > Well that was worth staying up to read! Man, thanks Matt. > > ...and Mark, you might be surprised that I am harder and more pushy on > our PMs about features WISPs lik
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
And now to stir it in the other direction If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done. While I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty big problems. I am seriously considering VL for some future deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it. The main Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of having simple installation processes with standard procedures for cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple routing capabilities. If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in these installation limitations. Ok, now. I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless industry but the ISP business in general. The Telecom Act of '96 has been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current administration into a toothless tiger. Unlicensed wireless gear for broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum. Cell phone company valuations are based in large part on the value of their spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related. Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily stacked against us. So when I hear people saying things like "the only thing that can take out Canopy is other Canopy" and that it hurts the entire industry to use gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the "paperwork" test) - I laugh quietly and to myself. Here's why... Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian "survivor" of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly. If it is unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally. Yes, Canopy too. It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a nuclear bomb. So you Motorola guys can get off your high horse, when the bomb goes off you are just as cooked as the guy using wifi based gear. Licensed guys aren't exactly immune either. WiMax isn't designed to handle interference well, so I would imagine that those neat self-install WiMax CPE radios have a lovely time when the neighbor kid turns on his hacked Linksys router running in 2.5ghz and the noise floor goes through the roof. There are lots of folks using products that aren't "legal" and they are going to get away with it because the law is unenforcable. Yes, there are examples of people who will get fined, and probably a few high-profile cases to scare the rest. But there are millions of software definable chipsets out there that can be modified to do all kinds of crazy things in both unlicensed AND licensed spectrum. The cat is out of the bag, and our current legislative structure has no hope of getting it back in. Running an omni at 40db in 2.4ghz is about as serious an infraction as downloading "unlicensed" music from Bit Torrent, and both have an equal probability of being prosecuted. DISCLAIMER: All of the systems that I have deployed now have certs for the radio/amp/antenna combinations and run at or below the allowed power for the band. Just because I don't like the system doesn't mean that I'm going to start the revolution and flaunt the rules. The saddest thing to me is seeing the faces at ISPCON and thinking about how many more used to be around a few years ago. I look at guys like Travis Johnson, John Scrivner or Rick Harnish and wonder about the other ten guys that used to be there. They are probably insurance salesmen or working in a used car lot somewhere after their ISP either folded up or was gobbled up by a big operator when it was clear that things were not sustainable. When I think about how close I was to that same fate, I start to wonder what good did the legal framework do for the independent ISP? UNE and reciprocal comp are gone - wholesale rates for DSL are higher than the retail rates that the ILEC charge and now the modem pool providers are starting to feel the heat. We've got unlicensed wireless, and it was so worthless that it is called the "junk band". The real tragedy is the death of so many ISPs, and the loss of innovation with it.
RE: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)
I am under the notion that Pacific Wireless/Cush Craft is due some recognition, serious back patting and an all around "ata boy - good job." Some of us say Trango - some say Alvarion, some say StarOS and some of us say MikroTik, but I think 90% of us all say PACWIRELESS! We dressed out another water tower yesterday with the usual stuff for us which consists of 4 - 95* Hpol PacWireless sectors, 1 - 29dbi PacWireless 5.x grid, 1 - PacWireless 32db dish w/radome and a PacWireless 12dbi w/3* electric down tilt Omni for backup as well as 7 RB532A enclosed in (Naturally) 7 PacWireless hinged enclosures with (yes) 7 PacWireless lightening arrestors. When I pulled out my camera to document the install - - I realized all my towers are dressed with GOBS of PacWireless antennas. On my 1.5 hour drive home from that tower I started thinking "how many other manufacturers' antennas do I have installed on my network?" Not counting the Trango dual polarized there were a total of two other antennas that were not PacWireless. My point is this - I buy PacWireless every time without ever giving quality a thought as I have so much experience with Pacific Wireless Products in the past that its never been a question. I have completely taken Pacific Wireless for granted as I have never had an antenna bought from them that gave me trouble. That is saying a lot in my book as I have to look and think when ordering radios, SBC's, CPE...ETC. Ben - My hat is off to you and your Company! You have made it into my Antenna "HALL OF FAME" and I am a true Pacific Wireless fan. Thanks for the great products and keep up the good work. You have enabled so many of us to build a fine network, offer multiple services over our infrastructure and built in reliability as well as affordability! We will be looking at you to keep up with "whatever" is new and fang dangled for the industry in the future. Thanks for ALL THAT DONATED HURRICANE GEAR TOO!!! It is ALL still up and running today serving many on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. THANKS!! Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief) www.mac-tel.us (VoIP sales) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4182 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
Matt and Mark (and others), This is a general rant about posts from the last few weeks. When I read the posts about who is better and what is missing, it reminds me of a kid's christmas wish list. There is no perfect CPE. Everyone has their favorite. And much like politics and religion you aren't going to persuade someone to change. You have to ask yourself: Is Good Enough, good enough to base your business on? If it won't scale or has a limit, is that limit good enough for your market? Chances are it is because more than two-thirds the ISPs I have dealt with have less than 300 BB clients. Less than 300. So their network is Good Enough. (Why 300 is a whole other rant -- sales, marketing, humping the boxes instead of the prospects). There is often talk of valuations - and like Mark said - the customer is the asset. That being said: No one is buying your network or your "Potential". They are paying for your customer list and contracts. Your fortunes will probably not be made on just connectivity. You need to start moving up the layer stack and get closer to Layer 7 - the application. With the Mega-Mergers now complete, your customer base is now the target. The price point is $10 - and they are coming. You need find a way to capture your customers like banks do with Bill Pay. I often speak with cable operators who are getting their lunch eaten by DBS, because to upgrade their current network is millions - even for 6000 homes passed. So the shift is coming. The big are eating the small in ever segment on the market. People will want/need bigger pipes - and probably won't care where it comes from. But security, data protection, pc support, help, and knowledge is yours to sell. Sorry for the rambling. - Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Solar power
Mark - What are you wanting to power, load-wise? Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power David... Any news on this potential sub-$1k solar system? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: "David Weddell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:58 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Solar power > We are testing a solar solution right now and will get back with you on > the > results. It will be sub $1,000 if the testing goes well. I will report it > to > the list when we get the full results. > > Regards, > David Weddell > Director of Sales > > 260 827 2551 Office > 800 363 4881 Ext 2551 > 260 273 7547 Cell > > www.onlyinternet.net > www.oibw.net > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jason Hensley > Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:41 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power > > I appreciate the info, but for what I need, $5000 isn't even close to > being > worth it. This is for ONE AP (Deliberant 7000). I was thinking if I > could > stay in the $500 range it might be OK, but anything more than that would > not > > make sense for me in THIS case. In other instances it might, but not this > one. > > Thanks for this though. I'll keep it in case I run into an instance where > I > > do need something like this. Great info! > > > - Original Message - > From: "Alan Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:58 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power > > >>I have some - the typical shopping list is like this: >> >> Kyocera solar panels - 4 kc130-k, at approx. 680.00 each - gives me 14 >> volts at 14 amps on a good day (to charge batteries) >> Mounting hardware - varies 100-200 >> wiring harnesses between panels - 50.00 >> wiring harness to charge controller (below) 20 >> Trojan l16H batteries - 2 to 4, at 270 each (+/-) >> wiring interconnects - Series to 12 volts, parallel from there 30.00 >> fuses and cutoff switch between batteries and everything else 40.00 >> fuses and cutoff switch between panels and everything else 40.00 >> charge controller - I have used shell 20's (120.00 with enclosure) >> successfully, though they are a bit low rated for the solar load - I have >> gone to Xantrex charge controllers with cute lights and battery >> temperature sensors (twice as much - 245 plus 29) >> voltage regulator (90.00) for 12 v to 18 v boost (range 6 v to 24 v) >> timer 50.00 (sometimes I set them up to be off from 1 am to 5 am, to >> save power during the gray, foggy period coming up)(December 1 to >> February > >> 1) - that's why 4 batteries, too. It is better to add batteries than >> panels for the most part (see Kyocera panels above) and auto tilting >> mounts don't give us that much advantage up here above 45degrees north - >> just a few percent. In the southern lands, I'd give them a try. >> Enclosure for the stuff - varies, depending on whether I find a sweet box >> or build a little hut. ($ whatever) >> Grounding stuff. - rods, #2 copper wire, wire lugs, clamps. 100.00 >> >> About 5000.00 for a decent power setup for me. I am using Tranzeo radios, >> at 18 volts. Very Christmas-like, with the flickering lights on top of >> the > >> tower... >> >> I have a generator handy for charging on really bad stretches - a Honda >> 2000i, for about 900.00, with a SERIOUS cable lock. >> >> And if the lousy communists/free spending democrats/stinking republican >> fascists/religious true believing kooks/screwed up militarists/nasty bird >> flu ridden ducks/global frying eco-terrorists/flaming radical >> libertarians > >> make everything bad, I can harvest my stuff to power my house (WOO HOO!!) >> H maybe I should go take a look. I Am Armed. And carry sharp >> Multimeter probes. >> >> And, it's fun - bragging rights, ya know. >> >> I'll send you drawings if you want (on my time schedule - I am in the >> middle of an assembly right now :} ) >> There are several good supply houses for the parts, and most of them are >> Very Helpful. I'd tell you who I use, but that would be Bad Form. >> >> www.bigdam.net >> >> >> -- >> 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.
RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
Matt, VL CPE ship with the cable, pre-terminated. As for management, you can use telnet or SNMP with both standard and proprietary MIBs. We do not permit Web-based for security reasons and you can restrict management access to specific IP addresses and/or directions (from the Ethernet side or the wireless side). You can also auto configure using an FTP or TFTP file (for batch, network wide, or specific units). As for the router feature thing, I believe most of that arises from people's experience with 802.11b and the belief that since we don't have routing than everyone must be able to see everyone on an Alvarion network. That is not the case for a number of reasons. One such reason is our support of Ethernet Broadcast Filtering: The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu enables defining the layer 2 (Ethernet) broadcast and multicast filtering capabilities for the selected SU. Filtering the Ethernet broadcasts enhances the security of the system and saves bandwidth on the wireless medium by blocking protocols that are typically used in the customer's LAN but are not relevant for other customers, such as NetBios, which is used by the Microsoft Network Neighborhood. Enabling this feature blocks Ethernet broadcasts and multicasts by setting the I/G bit at the destination address to 1. This feature should not be enabled when there is a router behind the SU. The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu includes the following parameters: Filter Options DHCP Broadcast Override Filter PPPoE Broadcast Override Filter ARP Broadcast Override Filter Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 2:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... And now to stir it in the other direction If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done. While I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty big problems. I am seriously considering VL for some future deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it. The main Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of having simple installation processes with standard procedures for cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple routing capabilities. If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in these installation limitations. Ok, now. I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless industry but the ISP business in general. The Telecom Act of '96 has been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current administration into a toothless tiger. Unlicensed wireless gear for broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum. Cell phone company valuations are based in large part on the value of their spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related. Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily stacked against us. So when I hear people saying things like "the only thing that can take out Canopy is other Canopy" and that it hurts the entire industry to use gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the "paperwork" test) - I laugh quietly and to myself. Here's why... Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian "survivor" of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly. If it is unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally. Yes, Canopy too. It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a nuclear bomb. So you Motorola guys can get off your high horse, when the bomb goes off you are just as cooked as the guy using wifi based gear. Licensed guys aren't exactly immune either. WiMax isn't designed to handle interference well, so I would imagine that those neat self-install WiMax CPE radios have a lovely time when the neighbor kid turns on his hacked Linksys router running in 2.5ghz and the noise flo
Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)
Hi, I would have to agree. PacWireless has done a great job with their antenna products over the past 5 years. We have never had a "bad" antenna out of the box, and they have always worked as advertised, and they are affordable. However, they are not perfect. Their 5.3ghz 10dbi omni had problems 6 months ago by not being properly grounded inside the antenna... causing wireless cards to blow with the slightest amount of static in the air. Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. We started replacing many of our problem locations with these injectors... however, when we replaced the one farthest from our office (of course), it blew up the radio. We then tested the unit and found it was putting out 50+VDC rather than 24V. The issue was my tech did not have a spare radio with him, and it required a 2.5 hour drive each way, with a bucket truck, up the backside of the steepest ski hill in America, to replace the radio. Ben took care of us, and made it right, but there was a real problem with those original injectors. We will continue to use them for almost all of our antenna needs. They have great customer service and a great product. Travis Microserv P.S. Ski hill info: www.snowking.com Mac Dearman wrote: I am under the notion that Pacific Wireless/Cush Craft is due some recognition, serious back patting and an all around "ata boy - good job." Some of us say Trango - some say Alvarion, some say StarOS and some of us say MikroTik, but I think 90% of us all say PACWIRELESS! We dressed out another water tower yesterday with the usual stuff for us which consists of 4 - 95* Hpol PacWireless sectors, 1 - 29dbi PacWireless 5.x grid, 1 - PacWireless 32db dish w/radome and a PacWireless 12dbi w/3* electric down tilt Omni for backup as well as 7 RB532A enclosed in (Naturally) 7 PacWireless hinged enclosures with (yes) 7 PacWireless lightening arrestors. When I pulled out my camera to document the install - - I realized all my towers are dressed with GOBS of PacWireless antennas. On my 1.5 hour drive home from that tower I started thinking "how many other manufacturers' antennas do I have installed on my network?" Not counting the Trango dual polarized there were a total of two other antennas that were not PacWireless. My point is this - I buy PacWireless every time without ever giving quality a thought as I have so much experience with Pacific Wireless Products in the past that its never been a question. I have completely taken Pacific Wireless for granted as I have never had an antenna bought from them that gave me trouble. That is saying a lot in my book as I have to look and think when ordering radios, SBC's, CPE...ETC. Ben - My hat is off to you and your Company! You have made it into my Antenna "HALL OF FAME" and I am a true Pacific Wireless fan. Thanks for the great products and keep up the good work. You have enabled so many of us to build a fine network, offer multiple services over our infrastructure and built in reliability as well as affordability! We will be looking at you to keep up with "whatever" is new and fang dangled for the industry in the future. Thanks for ALL THAT DONATED HURRICANE GEAR TOO!!! It is ALL still up and running today serving many on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. THANKS!! Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief) www.mac-tel.us (VoIP sales) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4182 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)
Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. Got a url for these? 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] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)
I failed to mention that all 7 of my radios were powered by PACWIRELESS POE48i POE power supplies!! :-) George - here is the URL - - scroll to the bottom of that page and choose 24v http://pacwireless.com/products/POE.shtml Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless) Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It > provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. Got a url for these? 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] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL
Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this. In another post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted. Don't see how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection. So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry wiring codes? Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add. Is there any update as to when that will be available? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been told. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Patrick, That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, "brains", behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way. I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable with the same pinout. I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this. The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon. What is the cable limit for Alvarion's CAT5 connection? Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af? :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B (or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are able to maintain the long distance. So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an actual reason. Regards, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- 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] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL
No further news on either front. I do what I can to push, but things like the pinout will never be high on the list since A) they claim to have a good reason, and B) in the rankings of where it is on an operator's decision list, it is somewhere between the bottom and the footnotes of the list. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:12 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this. In another post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted. Don't see how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection. So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry wiring codes? Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add. Is there any update as to when that will be available? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been told. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Patrick, That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, "brains", behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way. I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable with the same pinout. I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this. The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon. What is the cable limit for Alvarion's CAT5 connection? Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af? :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B (or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are able to maintain the long distance. So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an actual reason. Regards, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, v
Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)
Very nice. I've been wanting an all in one power supply poe for a while now, just to keep things tidy. Wonder if it will work with a non 802.af device and just give me 24v and ethernet George Mac Dearman wrote: I failed to mention that all 7 of my radios were powered by PACWIRELESS POE48i POE power supplies!! :-) George - here is the URL - - scroll to the bottom of that page and choose 24v http://pacwireless.com/products/POE.shtml Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless) Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. Got a url for these? George -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL
Well your choice of 75' was a good one. In the past when I used Smart Bridges or Tranzeo, the 50' was sometimes a few feet too short. George Patrick Leary wrote: No further news on either front. I do what I can to push, but things like the pinout will never be high on the list since A) they claim to have a good reason, and B) in the rankings of where it is on an operator's decision list, it is somewhere between the bottom and the footnotes of the list. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:12 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this. In another post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted. Don't see how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection. So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry wiring codes? Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add. Is there any update as to when that will be available? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been told. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL Patrick, That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, "brains", behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way. I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable with the same pinout. I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this. The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon. What is the cable limit for Alvarion's CAT5 connection? Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af? :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B (or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are able to maintain the long distance. So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an actual reason. Regards, Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Solar power
About 80 watts. Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: "Russ Kreigh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 6:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Solar power Mark - What are you wanting to power, load-wise? Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:14 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power David... Any news on this potential sub-$1k solar system? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: "David Weddell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:58 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Solar power We are testing a solar solution right now and will get back with you on the results. It will be sub $1,000 if the testing goes well. I will report it to the list when we get the full results. Regards, David Weddell Director of Sales 260 827 2551 Office 800 363 4881 Ext 2551 260 273 7547 Cell www.onlyinternet.net www.oibw.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power I appreciate the info, but for what I need, $5000 isn't even close to being worth it. This is for ONE AP (Deliberant 7000). I was thinking if I could stay in the $500 range it might be OK, but anything more than that would not make sense for me in THIS case. In other instances it might, but not this one. Thanks for this though. I'll keep it in case I run into an instance where I do need something like this. Great info! - Original Message - From: "Alan Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power I have some - the typical shopping list is like this: Kyocera solar panels - 4 kc130-k, at approx. 680.00 each - gives me 14 volts at 14 amps on a good day (to charge batteries) Mounting hardware - varies 100-200 wiring harnesses between panels - 50.00 wiring harness to charge controller (below) 20 Trojan l16H batteries - 2 to 4, at 270 each (+/-) wiring interconnects - Series to 12 volts, parallel from there 30.00 fuses and cutoff switch between batteries and everything else 40.00 fuses and cutoff switch between panels and everything else 40.00 charge controller - I have used shell 20's (120.00 with enclosure) successfully, though they are a bit low rated for the solar load - I have gone to Xantrex charge controllers with cute lights and battery temperature sensors (twice as much - 245 plus 29) voltage regulator (90.00) for 12 v to 18 v boost (range 6 v to 24 v) timer 50.00 (sometimes I set them up to be off from 1 am to 5 am, to save power during the gray, foggy period coming up)(December 1 to February 1) - that's why 4 batteries, too. It is better to add batteries than panels for the most part (see Kyocera panels above) and auto tilting mounts don't give us that much advantage up here above 45degrees north - just a few percent. In the southern lands, I'd give them a try. Enclosure for the stuff - varies, depending on whether I find a sweet box or build a little hut. ($ whatever) Grounding stuff. - rods, #2 copper wire, wire lugs, clamps. 100.00 About 5000.00 for a decent power setup for me. I am using Tranzeo radios, at 18 volts. Very Christmas-like, with the flickering lights on top of the tower... I have a generator handy for charging on really bad stretches - a Honda 2000i, for about 900.00, with a SERIOUS cable lock. And if the lousy communists/free spending democrats/stinking republican fascists/religious true believing kooks/screwed up militarists/nasty bird flu ridden ducks/global frying eco-terrorists/flaming radical libertarians make everything bad, I can harvest my stuff to power my house (WOO HOO!!) H maybe I should go take a look. I Am Armed. And carry sharp Multimeter probes. And, it's fun - bragging rights, ya know. I'll send you drawings if you want (on my time schedule - I am in the middle of an assembly right now :} ) There are several good supply houses for the parts, and most of them are Very Helpful. I'd tell you who I use, but that would be Bad Form. www.bigdam.net -- 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
[WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
Happy New Year! Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, & D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a "health check feature". Has anyone out there tried anything else? -RickG Palm Beach 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] Dual-WAN routers
NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html CHUCK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers Happy New Year! Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, & D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a "health check feature". Has anyone out there tried anything else? -RickG Palm Beach Broadband -- 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] Dual-WAN routers
RickG wrote: Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, & D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a "health check feature". Has anyone out there tried anything else? Are you just looking for redundancy (i.e. automatic failover so if one ISP or connection dies, you'll more-or-less transparently switch to the second one), or for bonding or load balancing (i.e. double your bandwidth by using both connections at once)? Either way, building a system with Mikrotik's RouterOS software is probably the answer you're looking for, or at least an acceptable answer. Automatic failover is so easy, even I was able to figure it out; the other fancy stuff you'd have to read up a bit, but it's quite possible. Heck, the new(ish) RouterBoard 150 hardware comes with the software, and the board itself can be found for around $70. Add in a power supply and a case of some sort, and you've got a nice complete setup for around $100. (I'm assuming you need JUST routing here; if you want this to be a wireless client as well, you'd need a slightly more expensive piece of kit.) 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/
[WISPA] OT: HD broadcast is TV heaven!..and good for WISPs (your "triple play"?)
Speaking of RF and the TV bands conversion to digital (and the relevance to WISPs is at the end of this post)... I for some reason thought the transition to digital was far off. Actually, I've learned most all metro areas now have full digital broadcast availability. And like may, I mostly grew up in an era where one simply had some pay TV service -- off air stuff was barely tolerable quality and there were only three networks and maybe one local UHF independent that looked like snow. But when I moved up here to the greater San Fran area in early 2005 (I'm actually in Mountain View 10 miles north of San Jose, 30 miles south of San Francisco) I decided to look into alternatives to cable or satellite for my TV content. I figured I am more into movies than all the stuff on cable. I had also had DirecTV, paying extra for the little HD content that was to be had. It turned out that DirecTV did not have all the agreements in place so I could not get all network HD content, so basically the HD availability on satellite was a sham deal and I was paying a lot. Anyway, I discovered the www.antennaweb.org Web site where you can plug in your address and see exactly what HD channels will be available, what antenna you'll need and the exact azimuth you need to orient the antenna. I already had an HD tuner built in to my TV. One half a day and a $39 dollar indoor antenna later I was watching about 30 free channels and getting all the broadcast HD content. And that's with the tower just over 30 miles away. I cancelled my pay-for-content service (saving about $85 a month) and never looked back. Today, I watch it on a Pioneer flat panel plasma and the clarity is beyond incredible -- better than any of the HD I experienced via satellite. Every sports game is now seen in blistering HD. Almost every show after 8PM is in HD. All this I never got on satellite even though I paid extra. From 30 miles away I get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, KRON channels (local super station independent), two 24 hour weather channels, 5 PBS channels (including PBS Kids for my girls), PAX, a shopping channel (who cares, but I get it), several Spanish channels, several Asian channels, and few more independents, all free. I don't miss cable channels one bit. Even if you are not in a major metro, hit the www.antennaweb.org site and see what's available in your area. You might be surprised. And if you do have it, I bet you'll cancel that expensive TV contract. SO WHAT'S THE POINT?... This is all big news really, because if the story gets out, droves will be cancelling their cable and satellite contracts. Cale ops should be scared and satellite must be terrified. Content is the main reason to have cable and the only reason to have satellite in the first place. And if all cable has left to bundle that customers care about is Internet and VoIP, then WISPs can be on a level field as cable, and definitely in better position than satellite. SO WISPs, spread the word locally. If the broadcast is available, drive people to it -- maybe even offer free indoor HD antennas (these can be had for $25) with your WISP Internet service. Present it along with VoIP, hook up their local off-air HD when you roll the truck to install the broadband service and you can market it like triple play. The additional good news is that the old analog channels are clearing up and will go UL before too long. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Mikrotik Firewall
I may be replacing my SonicWall 2040 with an MT for firewall functions. I can easily port all of the rules I have created. But how do I get MT to block things like Port Scans, Syn/Fin packets, etc.? -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.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] churn, double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it
Patrick, I'm talking about ALL the CPE on a sector being able to send its que'd voice out before any CPE can release data into the sector? Thats pretty cool. But I'd be interested in learning more on how that protocol method interacts with bandwidth allocation per subscriber. This is the problem that I see from the provider point of view. They have two profiles of subscribers, the ones that use their bandwdith, and the ones that don't. The ones that don't can be oversubscribed heavilly, therefore can be sold to at a much lower cost to compete agaisnt commodity cable and DSL competitors. The ones that do, monompolize the network, and need to be sold to at a higher price, often designated at a business class CIR type service, or however else the ISP tends to market the hgiher QOS guarantee service. When the ISP qualifies the prospect appropriately in advance correctly, everyone wins. The ISP gets paid, The High QOS client gets the priority he needs, and the low cost client does not get starved of broadband. The problem occurs when the ISP does not qualify the prospect appropriately. We've learned that every client starts their conversation out, "I barely use bandwidth. I just need a very low cost service like ADSL for $49. I'm just doing VOIP, basic Internet use, and creating a VPN between my offices for a central file server. Maybe some occassional video conferencing. But nothing demanding." Or they lie, and say they have one computer just doing limited internet browsing, and you learn they are hosting about 20 web servers and a search engine, or a Bulk Email service. Or if I make it relevent to this thread, they end up putting 20-30 VOIP phones on the service, that they say is just a limited web browsing service. The truth is Managed VOIP is the big bnadwdith hog today. So globally Giving VOIP users first priority over all other traffic could be a big flaw. It would allow the one that misrepresented their need to chew up all the good honest customer's bandwdith. Meaning if VOIP had first priority above all data traffic, the Client paying $49 a month and inappropriately putting 30 VOIP calls on the service, would have better service than the other 20 customers paying $200/month for data services that bought the appropriate bandwidth for their need. So their is a catch 22 on Prioritizing VOIP above all. So the question is... Does Alvarion do anything smart about this, to deliver a fair amount of bandwidth to ALL subs, when prioritizing VOIP? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:58 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it I don't think so Gino, but I'm open to be proven wrong. Tell me who else can actually prioritize over the air sector wide. I'm talking about not just pushing out the voice first on any given CPE, I'm talking about ALL the CPE on a sector being able to send its que'd voice out before any CPE can release data into the sector? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:19 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it Patrick, not to rain on you parade but you guys area actually 2nd on this RF prioritization feature Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it ...So I'm here at our annual national meeting and our project manager is explaining the Wireless Link Prioritization feature available for BreezeACCESS VL. Frankly, it has always seemed esoteric to those of us non-technical types, but now I got and it is simple enough. First, I learned the statistical improvement in churn when a provider has double play VoIP + data customers. We have had a few CLECs report to us that with a single play model their churn is about 9%. Adding double play takes it down to close to 1%. This is critical to the business model because they said a 10% reduction in churn translates into about a 20% improvement in NPV per subscriber. That's obviously huge. So what's the WLP feature available in BreezeACCESS VL have to do with any of this? BreezeACCESS VL can already do QoS priority tagging of packets per CPE using layer 2 (802.11p), layer 3 (IP TOS, DSCP) or layer 4 (TCP/UDP port ranges common with Cisco, for example). That's good and already better than most brands
Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...
If its VL is 56 Volts, I'm wondering if Alvarion will work with all those left over Metrocom/Richochet 56V Power plants? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:47 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... Matt, VL CPE ship with the cable, pre-terminated. As for management, you can use telnet or SNMP with both standard and proprietary MIBs. We do not permit Web-based for security reasons and you can restrict management access to specific IP addresses and/or directions (from the Ethernet side or the wireless side). You can also auto configure using an FTP or TFTP file (for batch, network wide, or specific units). As for the router feature thing, I believe most of that arises from people's experience with 802.11b and the belief that since we don't have routing than everyone must be able to see everyone on an Alvarion network. That is not the case for a number of reasons. One such reason is our support of Ethernet Broadcast Filtering: The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu enables defining the layer 2 (Ethernet) broadcast and multicast filtering capabilities for the selected SU. Filtering the Ethernet broadcasts enhances the security of the system and saves bandwidth on the wireless medium by blocking protocols that are typically used in the customer's LAN but are not relevant for other customers, such as NetBios, which is used by the Microsoft Network Neighborhood. Enabling this feature blocks Ethernet broadcasts and multicasts by setting the I/G bit at the destination address to 1. This feature should not be enabled when there is a router behind the SU. The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu includes the following parameters: Filter Options DHCP Broadcast Override Filter PPPoE Broadcast Override Filter ARP Broadcast Override Filter Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 2:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year... And now to stir it in the other direction If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done. While I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty big problems. I am seriously considering VL for some future deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it. The main Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of having simple installation processes with standard procedures for cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple routing capabilities. If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in these installation limitations. Ok, now. I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless industry but the ISP business in general. The Telecom Act of '96 has been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current administration into a toothless tiger. Unlicensed wireless gear for broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum. Cell phone company valuations are based in large part on the value of their spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related. Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily stacked against us. So when I hear people saying things like "the only thing that can take out Canopy is other Canopy" and that it hurts the entire industry to use gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the "paperwork" test) - I laugh quietly and to myself. Here's why... Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian "survivor" of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly. If it is unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally. Yes, Canopy too. It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a nuclear bomb. So you Motorola guys
[WISPA] SSH DOS Killing Linux
We recently had a really nasty DOS attack that took down a large part of our network across several cell sites, from the infected client all the way to the Internet transit. Take note that we identified the problem quickly and cured it quickly. But This is the first time that this has occured in 5 years, as we have a good number of smart design characteristics that have limited the effects of most viruses on our network. We stopped the attack, by blocking SSH to the infected sub. The average amount of traffic crossing the entire network path from the client to the Internet was about 500 kbps on average. (This was a 20 mbps wireless link, and a 100mbps fiber trnasport link to the transit.). The two routers were a P4 2Ghz, and a Dual XEON 2.2Ghz w/ 10,000rpm SCSI3. The damage was that the CPU was nailed on both routers to about 99.9% using "TOP" to monitor stats. We varified that successful SSH sessions were not made directly to the protected routers themselves. Take note that the wireless links were barely effected, it was the router 2 hops away (Dual XEON) that got over loaded the most. Our routers have been tested to pass over 2 gbps of throughput easilly. And have been load tested to survive very small packets and high PPS adequately. The infected sub was bandwidth managed with HTB to 256k cir, 1 mbps mir, but not anything for PPS. So I'm looking for reasons that the CPU got overloaded. My theory is that the DOS attack resulted in a large number of disk writes, ( maybe logging?) causing the CPU saturation. I've had a hard time locating the cause. And have not discovered which virus yet, although I should have more info soon from my clients. So my question What needs to be done on a Linux machine to harden it, to protect against CPU oversaturation, during DOS attacks? What should and shouldn't be logged? Connection Tracking? Firewall logging? Traffic stats? 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] SSH DOS Killing Linux
- Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:26:39 -0900 Subject: [WISPA] SSH DOS Killing Linux > We recently had a really nasty DOS attack that took down a large part of our > > network across several cell sites, from the infected client all the way to > the Internet transit. > Take note that we identified the problem quickly and cured it quickly. > But This is the first time that this has occured in 5 years, as we have > a good number of smart design characteristics that have limited the effects > of most viruses on our network. We stopped the attack, by blocking SSH to > the infected sub. The average amount of traffic crossing the entire network > > path from the client to the Internet was about 500 kbps on average. (This > was a 20 mbps wireless link, and a 100mbps fiber trnasport link to the > transit.). The two routers were a P4 2Ghz, and a Dual XEON 2.2Ghz w/ > 10,000rpm SCSI3. The damage was that the CPU was nailed on both routers to > about 99.9% using "TOP" to monitor stats. We varified that successful SSH > sessions were not made directly to the protected routers themselves. Take > note that the wireless links were barely effected, it was the router 2 hops > away (Dual XEON) that got over loaded the most. Our routers have been > tested to pass over 2 gbps of throughput easilly. And have been load tested > > to survive very small packets and high PPS adequately. The infected sub was > bandwidth managed with HTB to 256k cir, 1 mbps mir, but not anything for > PPS. So I'm looking for reasons that the CPU got overloaded. My theory is > that the DOS attack resulted in a large number of disk writes, ( maybe > logging?) causing the CPU saturation. I've had a hard time locating the > cause. And have not discovered which virus yet, although I should have more > info soon from my clients. > > So my question > > What needs to be done on a Linux machine to harden it, to protect against > CPU oversaturation, during DOS attacks? > > What should and shouldn't be logged? Connection Tracking? Firewall logging? > Traffic stats? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > Hi Tom, What OS/application was running on these boxes? -Dee Alaska Wireless Systems 1(907)240-2183 Cell 1(907)349-2226 Fax 1(907)349-4308 Office www.akwireless.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet
Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU frame. But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps. The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a 1500MTU or smaller frame. So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 mbps fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection. So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get the advantage of the full 1GB of capacity? Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology? Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones? Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers will likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers? Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem? Is that method available to Linux? The reason I ask is several fold. In a network design where all traffic flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls to remote areas to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial because the cost of 1 big 1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity to everything, better apt to handle peak traffic and get higher oversubscription rates. However, if teh GB INternet pipe can not be efficiently used, this method would be severally flawed. It might be better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections spread out across one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and the network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit connection, for better over all throughput. In other words, in a 10 city network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a full combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps from each city to one central source where their was a single 1GB transit, would result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic was delivered to it as a 1500 MTU. Any feedback? Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card could only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests. With the 1500MTU frame acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less than 20%, so it was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU to 9600, we got over 800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, forget exact number but under 40%. These tests were replicated going PC to PC (no switch) and with a high end SMC GB switch in-line. 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] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet
Tom, How are the "big boys" doing it? Surely AT&T and others are transporting more than 200Mbps across their 1GB fiber links. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU frame. But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps. The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a 1500MTU or smaller frame. So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 mbps fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection. So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get the advantage of the full 1GB of capacity? Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology? Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones? Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers will likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers? Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem? Is that method available to Linux? The reason I ask is several fold. In a network design where all traffic flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls to remote areas to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial because the cost of 1 big 1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity to everything, better apt to handle peak traffic and get higher oversubscription rates. However, if teh GB INternet pipe can not be efficiently used, this method would be severally flawed. It might be better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections spread out across one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and the network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit connection, for better over all throughput. In other words, in a 10 city network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a full combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps from each city to one central source where their was a single 1GB transit, would result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic was delivered to it as a 1500 MTU. Any feedback? Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card could only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests. With the 1500MTU frame acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less than 20%, so it was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU to 9600, we got over 800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, forget exact number but under 40%. These tests were replicated going PC to PC (no switch) and with a high end SMC GB switch in-line. 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] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet
Hello Tom, First let me saydamn Cowboys... I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are saying, but we have pushed better than 800Mbps HDX and more than 700Mbps FDX aggregate between GigE MT routers. Checking the router Interfaces show a 1500MTU setting. Is that what you are talking about? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet Tom, How are the "big boys" doing it? Surely AT&T and others are transporting more than 200Mbps across their 1GB fiber links. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: > Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU > frame. > But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps. > The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a > 1500MTU or smaller frame. > So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 > mbps fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection. > > So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get > the advantage of the full 1GB of capacity? > Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology? > Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones? > Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers > will likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers? > Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem? > Is that method available to Linux? > > The reason I ask is several fold. In a network design where all > traffic flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls > to remote areas to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial > because the cost of 1 big 1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity > to everything, better apt to handle peak traffic and get higher > oversubscription rates. However, if teh GB INternet pipe can not be > efficiently used, this method would be severally flawed. It might be > better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections spread out across > one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and the > network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit > connection, for better over all throughput. In other words, in a 10 > city network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a > full combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps > from each city to one central source where their was a single 1GB > transit, would result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic > was delivered to it as a 1500 MTU. > > Any feedback? > > Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card > could only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests. With the 1500MTU > frame acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less > than 20%, so it was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU > to 9600, we got over 800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, > forget exact number but under 40%. These tests were replicated going > PC to PC (no switch) and with a high end SMC GB switch in-line. > > 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
Nice article! Thx! RickG On 1/6/07, CHUCK PROFITO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html CHUCK -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers Happy New Year! Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, & D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a "health check feature". Has anyone out there tried anything else? -RickG Palm Beach Broadband -- 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/ -- -RickG -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
David, This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG On 1/6/07, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: RickG wrote: > Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, & > D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a "health > check feature". Has anyone out there tried anything else? Are you just looking for redundancy (i.e. automatic failover so if one ISP or connection dies, you'll more-or-less transparently switch to the second one), or for bonding or load balancing (i.e. double your bandwidth by using both connections at once)? Either way, building a system with Mikrotik's RouterOS software is probably the answer you're looking for, or at least an acceptable answer. Automatic failover is so easy, even I was able to figure it out; the other fancy stuff you'd have to read up a bit, but it's quite possible. Heck, the new(ish) RouterBoard 150 hardware comes with the software, and the board itself can be found for around $70. Add in a power supply and a case of some sort, and you've got a nice complete setup for around $100. (I'm assuming you need JUST routing here; if you want this to be a wireless client as well, you'd need a slightly more expensive piece of kit.) 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/ -- -RickG -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers
RickG wrote: This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG I could never get load balancing and policy routing to work quite right, but it also wasn't a high priority for any of the locations where I've done this. And simple failover is detailed in the Mikrotik RouterOS manual. In a pinch, I know we've got one or two Mikrotik trainers on the list; you could get them to show you how to do it. You only have to pay for it once, then you can just copy-and-paste the configuration from there on out. :D Fair warning, I haven't used the RouterBoard 150 hardware I mentioned, but most of their other hardware has treated me well, so I wouldn't expect that board to be any different. 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] Dual-WAN routers
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David E. Smith wrote: This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG Rick, keeping in mind that "load balancing" where you don't control both ends of both links is not truly possible, there is a way to SORT OF get this effect. The problem is that some things have to be treated in a special way when you are using NAT (actually, masquerade, but we won't go there). VoIP, P2P, VPN and a few others come to mind. Either way, there are some things you can do to make this work with MT, and it's not that hard, but it IS a bit time consuming to get it right. As for failover, there are several ways to do this, and some of them are pretty simple. A bit of scripting knowledge is required, but other than that, it is not that bad to do. There are some examples in the manual (as David pointed out) Mikrotik RouterOS manual. In a pinch, I know we've got one or two Mikrotik trainers on the list; you could get them to show you how to do it. You only have to pay for it once, then you can just copy-and-paste the configuration from there on out. :D Well, copy/paste for policy routing is not really that cut and dried. It is best to understand what the policy states, then moving it to a new system is not that hard. As I said, it is somewhat time consuming to get it working, however. Fair warning, I haven't used the RouterBoard 150 hardware I mentioned, but most of their other hardware has treated me well, so I wouldn't expect that board to be any different. I like the 150...it is a very inexpensive solution for a low end router (just $70 plus a case and powersupply). The 153 is only $120 and you can add radio cards. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf 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/
