RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme

2006-02-09 Thread G.Villarini
Turn off connection tracking under firewall

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme

Thought I'd share my test results on NStreme.

I am happy with John Tulley's (Mikrotik's) attitude, in the sense that they 
are constantly trying to improve their product, and listening to comments 
from users of their product, and attempting to make sure users are not 
misinformed about the features of their product. They are smart guys, that 
have a lot of skin in the game, and experience beyond many in this industry.

I think Mikrotik is on to something, in their attempt to make a better 
protocol to enhance Wifi, and commend them on their guts to do so. However, 
with that said, I was rather disappointed with the results of NStreme in my 
testing.  I think its still needs a lot of work.

I used the same test bed I've been talking about the past few days 
(originally with Trango), 10 miles, -47db rssi on Mikrotik w/Range5, one 
radio per 532 MB, 2 ft quickfire dish.

My goal was to test how Mikrotik handled packet loss, when it was thrown at 
it at different speeds.  I used three primary tools for testing performance.

Mikrotik's included Btest/bandwdith tester and Iperf TCP and IPerf UDP.

I was surprised to see that Mikrotik's Built-in BTest program actually 
performed (on Average) pretty darn close to the results that I got with 
Iperf. It was hard to tell that at first because BTest is a bit jumpy with 
sparatic speeds, but the average reading was pretty close if an eye was kept

on it.  Iperf was more accurate in getting precise results.  The most useful

test is Iperf UDP. The reason is that Iperf will show you at what point 
(speed) you start to get packet loss and how much. All of Mikrotik's 
performance tests, leave out packet loss in their results, so you can't 
see the effect or choke points.  In a real world enviroment, with lots of 
subscribers and over subscription, its likely that a link will get hammered 
from time to time, and nice to know what will happen from a packet loss 
point of view when limits are reached.  But the biggest help of Iperf UDP, 
is to detect the MAX speed possible from the radio, and at what trade off of

packet loss.  The Iperf UDP speed results is what should be utilized for 
configuring bandwdith management tools. Tke note: That Iperf purpose is to 
see what point packetloss will occur, and it ALWAYS occurs with any 
connection which is pushed beyond its limits. no inteligence at other layers

is applied to slow tranmittingto reduce packet loss.

My goal was to compare Nstreme to not using NStreme. (used new version 9.12)

The majority of the time the Station side, negotiated at 54 mbps, however on

the AP-bride side negotiated speed could jump around from 48mbps to 6 mbps. 
but usually around 36 mbps (QAM16) majority of the time.  I was watching the

negotiated rate at the same time as testing to look for modulation change. 
It didn't change often. To be clear tests were done with WDS mode, and all 
default auto settings. Polling was turned off since a PtP link. And best 
fit, was tried on and off, however, that would not have much effect, as 
Iperf was sending consistent size packets of 1470 bytes.  Often people will 
see better speeds and less packet loss when testing with smaller packets, 
but to get menaing ful results its important to test a full packet size.

Mikrotik reported a Tx CCQ of 93-98% and noise floor of -101, in status of 
WLAN..

In Iperf you set the speed at which you want to send data to the link, and 
then it reports the speed transfer at and at what packet loss.  I ran the 
tests several times for each speed, so I had a good average to consider.

I was stunned by the results.

Using NStreme
Throughput (mbps) /  Packet loss.
6M / .12%
8M / 1% - 2.4%
10M / 1.2% - 8%
12M / 4%
13M / 8.3%
15M / 21%
18M / 35%

In summary, NStreme could perform well without packet loss at about up to 
8mbps.

Using Standard Wifi

10M / .73%
12M / .36%
13M / 1.8%
18M / 2.2%
19M and up- started to see high packet loss

Without NStreme, I could push almost 18mbps at the same packet loss 
Nstreme's 8mbps. And at 12mbps, I got very low packet loss. So in summary, 
Standard Wifi doubled the throughput of NStreme.

Unless there is some hidden tuning commands for NStreme, its not cutting it 
yet, over default Wifi.

Using Mikrotiks BTest, I got about 8M (4mbps in each direction) with 
NStreme, and about 12M (6-7mbps one way, and 5-6mbps in the other.). 
Likewise I tried Iperf TCP, which produced results very similar to 
Mikrotik's average.

Note: understand that this enviroment may have some noise considerations, 
tested to be around -80db with Trango. I tested the Mikrotik using 5.3Ghz, 
but 

RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme

2006-02-09 Thread danlist
I am not seeing results like this at all, I am using nstream on several PTP
links w/ SR5 cards w/ great success, (polling on) - throughput is awesome and I
have replaced all of my karlnet backhaul links (well not replaced but turned the
karlnet links into backup links), I believe mikrotik is definitely the next
wave, so much that I have started offering complete AP/CPE solution kits through
my web store @ http://store.wbisp.com/ (site just went up last night so its
under construction)

Mikrotik is really bringing a great product to the market and w/ the coming sr9
cards there will be a lot of options on the table for the WISP's


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:29 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme
 
 This problem was solved thanks to prompt tech support from Wisp-Router.
 
 With NStreme enabled, it is necessary to assign the IP to the Bridged port,
 not ether1.
 However, without Nstreme enabled, it works fine with IP assigned to Ether1,
 as long as bridged to WLAN.
 (The same way that always worked with Star OS)
 
 There were also a couple odd things related to what order setting were
 checked converting from one config to another, that kept Nstreme from
 working, which we were able to replicate after the fact (after tech
 support), to prove we weren't crazy.  Unfortuneately, I can't remember now,
 what exactly the sequence was, 5 hours later. For example, there were times
 when we enabled Nstreme correctly , and it just wouldn't connect. But we
 then disabled it, got WDS to talk again, and then re-enabled it
 successfully. It may have had something todo with one side of the link being
 completely configured before the other. Because if both aren't on Nstreme
 they dont talk at the radio level. So the rule was when a configuration
 didn't talk, disble NStreme, make it talk, then re-enable, and it would
 work.
 
 What I do like about Mikrotik, is that its all there infront of you, all the
 tools, all the features, as needed. Its pretty well laid out, once you get
 the hang of it.
 
 Probably the biggest feature I saw missing, was it didn't support diversity
 mode on the Wireless driver.  It was A or B or Full Duplex. But not
 diversity.
 
 One of the nice things about Star-OS was that it supported diversity mode,
 but also it was less critical to configuration errors.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme
 
 
  Thats exactly what we are trying to do, but its not working, using version
  9.12.
 
  If I try ping radios
 
  When sniffing, the station sees traffic comming in, but the AP-bridge,
  sees no traffic comming in.
 
  I correctly have put both interfaces Ether1 and WDS1 to the same bridge1.
  Won't pass traffic the second Nstreme gets selected.
 
  The IP is assigned to the ether1 port on each of the sides.
 
  I have the same problem trying to do it without WDS and straight WLAN1. I
  can;t pass traffic the second Nstreme gets selected.
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: JNA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:32 AM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik Bridging w-Nstreme
 
 
 
  However, it appears their may be is a flaw in config options, in the
  sense
  that there is no way to get NStreme to work in PTMP modes as a True
  bridge,
  as that would require WDS-AP and WDS-Slave which is not a supported
  config.
  Am I correct on this? Or when NStreme is used, can I safely use WDS-
  station,
  and be a true bridge?
 
  Tom,
 
  We are doing this. We have the base set to ap bridge, with dynamic wds
  enabled using nstream and polling. Backhaul on the towers using wds
  station
  WDS with dynamic wds enabled using nstream and polling. We then have an
  omni
  off the routerboard and the Ethernet connected to a trango 900 base via
  cross over. It is working as a full bridge and our clients get dhcp from
  the
  gateway server at the other end with no problem. I think this is what you
  are looking at doing and If so it is working for us.
 
  John
 
  --
  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: 

Re: [WISPA] BPSK QAM16 DSSS interference

2006-02-09 Thread Travis Johnson
If you are using 2.9.12, there should be a choice where it says 5ghz 
and 5ghz Turbo there should be a choice that says 5ghz 5mhz and 
5ghz 10mhz.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


How do you change channel width?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BPSK QAM16 DSSS interference



Tom,

Can you try changing the MT to use only 5mhz or 10mhz of spectrum 
just to see what that does? Or even temporarily change to an unused 
band with the MT (5.9ghz) to see what happens? It may help isolate 
what's really going on.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:


Thanks, Charles and Dustin,

The challenge I'm working on is to determine if the degregation of 
my test link, is caused by


A) Distortion on the transmitter, at full power? or
B) Overload or lack of acuracy of the receiver. or
C) Or Just plain interference creeping in. (tested at about -80db)
note: multipath unlikely, as LOS link, 10 miles, parabolic antenna, 
o wall behind antennas, 100ft above other buildings.


In my Trango test case, w/ 2ft antennas, QAM16, at -55 db I got 
worse signal Quality quality (packet loss) than at -65db. To me that 
would infer case A or B was happening.


What was interesting, is my Mikrotik test link w/ range5s, actually 
got peak rssi (full power) of -47db apposed to Altas's peak signal 
of -55.
(note: path analisys calculated -55 db appropriate, so not a 
negative for the Trango, but a Plus for the Range 5, exceeding 
expectations).


With the Mikrotik, the higher the rssi radio power, the better the 
speed results, and lower the packet loss. So Mikrotik did not seem 
to be plagued with the same delimna. However, at a surprise, the 
Mikrotik performed at a slower speed, and had more packet loss, in 
its best link configuration, than Trango had.  So the Trango at 
-65db QAM16, outperformed the Mikrotik at -47db.


I attribute those results partially, to how the radios deal with 
interference. One side of the link (AP/MU) had significant noise, 
causing the Mikrotik to lower modulation more frequently.  I proved 
this, by repeating speed tests with Trango using 5.3Ghz, which 
performed perfect links (no loss). However, the 10-11 miles was 
pushing the maxrange of 5.3, and I felt 5.3 was to risky, based on 
that. I actually had to turnup the Power a little over the legal 
limit to get the perfect link, but still lower rssi than the 5.8G 
link.  But my point was, when noise wasn't there, the links worked 
much better.


So the decission I am trying to decide on is,
a) increase the gain (dbi) of the antennas and lower the gain (dbm) 
of the radio, to improve the link.

For example, upgrade from 2 ft dished to 3 or 4 ft dished.  or

b) get a better 2 ft antenna with more isolation.
For example, upgrade Gabriel cheap 2 ft para to the high performance 
2 ft Gabriel Drum style antennas?


Either one could have a possitive effect. Its likely that my noise 
is comming from my colocated antennas at the same site. The Drum 
style antenna will likely have much better isolation comming from 
the sides. Better F/B ratio is not jsut about an antenna behind me, 
but also beside me, and interference is not always cured by lowering 
the beamwidth, if the interference is comming from the side. So 
better isolation antenna could be the choice.


However, if the packet loss was from self generated noise, larger 
antenna would keep my gain up, even after lowering power. However, I 
actually would still have a gain improvement, because the antenna 
increases gain in both directions, where as lowering he TX power 
only does it in one direction. Because most of my interference is at 
the AP/MU side my paln was possibly to


Increase the antenna at the RU/Client, to a 3-4 ft dish. If packet 
loss at -55db was due to transmitting to high power, and loss was at 
MU/AP then it would be most importantto lower transmit power at the 
RU/Client side. Increasing dish size at RU would help this.


Then on the MU/AP side, I would add the high performance 2ft 
antenna, with better isolation, taking that most of teh interference 
may be colocation interference. Increasing the antenna size may not 
block interference comming from the side.


But then again, if interference comming from the front (I have 
another site 20 deg off to the left), its possible the larger dish 
and narrower beam may in fact also help isolate interference.


Now to make it complicated, what if the cause is not interference at 
the radio receivers? But instead its all the RF in between and 
reflections comming out of phase and distorting my signal before it 
gets to my radios?


Now I could just add 4 ft high performance drum antennas on both 
sides, and call the problem done, but then that would be $4000 just 
in antennas :-( But also means upgrading mounting pole and 

[WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Cliff Leboeuf
We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread G.Villarini
What redline antenna was used? A sector a panel ?

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


-- 
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] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Cliff Leboeuf
Gino,
It was Redline's 2' panel.
- Cliff

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of G.Villarini
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:15 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

What redline antenna was used? A sector a panel ?

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


-- 
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] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread G.Villarini
140 are 15 db loss plus 2 for the connectors.. the effective gain on the
antenna would be 11 db ... run your calcs

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:29 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

Gino,
It was Redline's 2' panel.
- Cliff

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of G.Villarini
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:15 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

What redline antenna was used? A sector a panel ?

Gino A. Villarini, 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.aeronetpr.com
787.273.4143


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cliff Leboeuf
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


-- 
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] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

www.timesmicrowave.com

Go to the online calculator and figure up the losses on your cable.  Be sure 
to set the freq at 5800 mhz.


I'd not even count the connectors as loss, they are usually in the .1 to .5 
range.  But for a survey adding 1dB of loss per connector is safe.


As I read this they had a total of 250ish feet of coax?  Certainly there's 
gonna be basically no signal on the ground.


Here's what I'd do

Go up there with your tools and take pics of what you see.  Tell them that 
something just didn't feel right about the methodology employed and you 
wanted to check your methods against theirs.  Then show them what you found. 
This way it's non offensive to anyone and you should gain a customer for all 
future work.


Good luck,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)


We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna.

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


--
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]Farmers Wanting full Farm Coverage

2006-02-09 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181


- Original Message - 
From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA]Farmers Wanting full Farm Coverage



Why not use the same essid on all your towers?  That works for me.


It'll cause trouble when there's more than one ap per tower.  The cpe will 
tend to hunt from ap to ap casing flaky performand and outages.


Then there's the small problem of using a tower to feed another small tower. 
If you use the same essid the two local systems will hook up to each other 
rather than the previous tower in line.




Or use MikroTik AP's with a secondary essid that is the same on every 
tower just for roaming users.


I've got 6000 square miles of coverage.  Changing out all devices isn't an 
option.


Most of the tower sites are very, uh, crude.  Hostile may be a better 
word.  I use my system to test gear so I can tell you guys what'll hold up 
and what won't, even when you do things you shouldn't.


And you've missed the whole point in the first place.  My solution to 
this problem allows the use of EXISTING infrastructure from MULTIPLE 
providers.  Think cell phone system evolution here guys.




Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

As an FYI, we've had wifi in cop cars since 2002.  They get 15 MILES and 
can roam from tower to tower as well.


http://www.odessaoffice.com/wireless/mobile.htm

We used to just use the essid of ANY and they'd tie into any of my towers 
that they could see.  That no longer works due to all of the local wlans 
out there.  As soon as someone FINALLY builds me a smart cpe that can be 
told to associate with a list of 3 dozen or so ap's this mobile wifi 
stuff is really gonna take off for applications like this!


Laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: James McKinion 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: Re:[WISPA]Farmers Wanting full Farm Coverage


We have had two commercial cotton farms in Mississippi under complete 
wireless local area network coverage for about 3 years in a current 
demonstration project for precision agriculture applications.  The farm 
in eastern Mississippi has about 1600 acres of contiguous farmland with 
gently rolling land.  We used Alvarion BreezeAccess II equipment with an 
omni antenna at thebase station to communicate to three repeater station 
located at the edges of the farm.  Directional panel antennas connected 
to BreezeAccess II 2.4 GHz radios which then went to Breezecomm radios 
connected to 120 degree sector antennas which broadcast into the farm to 
the equipment in the fields.  THe farm equipment was equipped with 
Breezecom radios attached to omni antennas.  All of these radios are 
frequency hopping spread spectrum radios.  These have a range of about 
2.5 miles talking from sector antennas to omnis.  Wifi will onlu have a 
range of 1500 feet talking to omnis.  An omni antenna is the only cost 
effective practical device to put on a tractor, combine or truck.  The 
other reason we chose Alvarion is that their radios automatically handle 
mobility.  That is, they can automatically hand over communcation from 
sector to sector as boudaries are crossed with loosing connection or 
packets of data.  This system has a user data rate of 2 Mbps.  The base 
station has a Starband satellite link to the Internet.  We have also used 
DirecWay satellite links.


The other farm is located in the Mississippi Dellta and is set up 
similarly with the exception being that the communication from the base 
station to the 9 repeater stations is handled using the Waverider 900 MHz 
radios.  This farm consists of over 12000 acrs of cotton farmland 
separated by various tree lines and is roughly oval shaped with the major 
axis being 12 miles from side to side with the farm headquarters situated 
in the middle.  We needed the 900 MHz radios to penetrate the trre lines 
to reach the Breezecom repeaters with 120 degree sector antennas to 
provide field coverage.  THe siganl from the base station reaches almost 
10 miles so the entire farm is covered by the base station.  However, you 
must use yagi antenna precisely aimed to get reception.  Thus, the use of 
the repeater station using Alvarion Breezecom as before.


I can sen you a copy of the research paper we published if this is of 
further interest to you.


James

Dr. James M. McKinion
USDA-ARS
Genetics and Precision Agriculture Res. Unit
P. O. Box 5367
Mississippi State, MS  39762
Ph: 662-320-7449
FAX: 662-320-7528
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

Re: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread JohnnyO




There was no noise detected b/c there was no signal going into the SPEC-AN ! - This sounds like something you would do Cliff - sure this guy wasn't related to you ? 

JohnnyO

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 10:07 -0600, Cliff Leboeuf wrote:


We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
	a. the analyzer remained in their truck
	b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
	c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
	d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
	e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
	f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Cliff Leboeuf








I knew that I PAID my dues for a reason.!
:) I wasnt treated this way before.

I guess I get what I paid forIs there a
money-back policy?

- Cliff











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of JohnnyO
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006
12:49 PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flawed
Spectrum Analysis (I think!)





There was no noise detected b/c there was no signal going into the
SPEC-AN ! - This sounds like something you would do Cliff - sure this guy
wasn't related to you ? 

JohnnyO

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 10:07 -0600, Cliff Leboeuf wrote: 

We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to beperformed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that theequipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party'sanalysis.Their analysis was performed as follows:1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer a. the analyzer remained in their truck b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about140' c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?) d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400 e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sitessurveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two otherlocations surveyed f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why therewas no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I knowthere to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from theanalyzer to the antenna. Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer thatI feel this analysis if flawed?Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated aswell as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)- Cliff




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Blair Davis

Hey all:

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik 
that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...


The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end 
has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio. 

Using the link calculator at 
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a predicted rx of 
-60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the SR5 
cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8


On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's 
winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)


With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin 
of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output 
power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the 
MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can 
not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like 
amount.  This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec 
in TCP mode


With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the 
margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting 
note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at 
30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing 
something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.  
Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link 
is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode.


Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back 
again.  I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The 
antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the 
pigtail from one card to the other).


Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some 
bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or 
is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db?


BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 
cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's


Thanks in advance.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread danlist
What pigtails and connectors? Mmcx on the SR5 or u.fl? are these new SR5's or
older sr'5s?

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Blair Davis
 Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.
 
 Hey all:
 
 I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik
 that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...
 
 The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end
 has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.
 
 Using the link calculator at
 http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a predicted rx of
 -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the SR5
 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8
 
 On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's
 winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)
 
 With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin
 of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output
 power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the
 MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can
 not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like
 amount.  This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec
 in TCP mode
 
 With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the
 margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting
 note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at
 30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing
 something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
 Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link
 is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode.
 
 Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back
 again.  I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The
 antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the
 pigtail from one card to the other).
 
 Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some
 bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or
 is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db?
 
 BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5
 cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's
 
 Thanks in advance.
 
 --
 Blair Davis
 
 AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240
 
 West Michigan Wireless ISP
 269-686-8648
 
 A division of:
 Camp Communication Services, INC
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 --
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Blair Davis




With 140 ft of LMR-400 at 5.8GHz, the loss is about 15db.  With a good
antenna topside, you might get some usable results, but not good
ones

For the RG6, I can't find any loss specs for freq. above 900MHz.  At
900MHz, the loss is about 10db for 140 ft.  Extrapolating that to
5.8GHz, I estimate the loss would exceed 30db at 5.8GHz!  Not gonna see
much of anything!!!

If you connect RG-6 cable directly to LMR-400 or to N-connector
antennas or equipment, you have an impedance mis-match.  I'd expect to
loose 6db or more with that mis-match (at each connection!).  This is
on top of the cable loss with the RG6.  If they did not use a balun to
match the RG6 cable to the N based equipment, then the total loss on
the RG6 'test' would exceed 42db!!!  Not gonna work.

This 'test' was a waste of time.

  JohnnyO wrote:

  
  
There was no noise detected b/c there was no signal going into the
SPEC-AN ! - This sounds like something you would do Cliff - sure this
guy wasn't related to you ? 
  
JohnnyO
  
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 10:07 -0600, Cliff Leboeuf wrote:
  
We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
	a. the analyzer remained in their truck
	b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
	c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
	d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
	e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
	f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

"Ammunition" that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff



  
  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006
  



-- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Brian Webster
Cliff,
Are you sure the first 140' was RG6? I think that is 75 ohm cable so 
that
may be a problem, if it was something else it still might have too much loss
at 5.8 GHz to get any signal to the SA. You may be on to something with the
adapters, if they were just using good quality N-Type for all the
connections it should not be a big deal, but if they were going from an N to
BNC or PL259 or any other type of connector not rated for 5.8 GHz that could
introduce big losses. I would have them inquire about the calibration (and
date) of the SA and it's rated sensitivity for 5.8 GHz. Operator skill might
come in to play, if they had too much attenuation switched in to the SA at
the time of the readings it could give the results you state. As far as
seeing your PTP signal, depending on how well you were doing the swing test
and/or the alignment of any nulls on the pattern it is possible that your
link signal would be low enough not to be detected with any of the above
situations. If your link has high gain antennas on both ends the beam width
of your signal could be narrow enough that it might not pass as close to
this tower as you would assume, the best way to check that is to draw a line
on the map between your sites and see if it really does cross this site in
the main beam.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com http://www.wirelessmapping.com



-Original Message-
From: Cliff Leboeuf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:07 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)


We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna.

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


--
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] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Julius Igugu
Upgrade to 2.9.12.   It has better wireless performance.  Chech the mikrotik 
forums.
- Original Message - 
From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.



Hey all:

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik 
that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...


The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end has 
a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.
Using the link calculator at http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm 
I get a predicted rx of -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db 
output).  Using the SR5 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8


On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's 
winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)


With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin 
of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output 
power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the 
MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can not 
put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like amount. 
This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec in TCP mode


With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the margin 
of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting note 
here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at 30db to 
get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing something odd 
with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.  Reducing the 
setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link is stable and 
will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode.


Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back again. 
I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The antennas and 
cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the pigtail from 
one card to the other).


Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some bad 
SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or is the 
tx power setting relative db not absolute db?


BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 cards 
then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's


Thanks in advance.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Blair Davis




I was/am aware of the mmcx issue and all tests were done with the same
u.fl pigtails on each end.  When the radio cards were changed, the same
u.fl pigtails were used.  Only the radio cards were changed.

They were the older SR5 cards with the mmcx problem.  (proven by
testing!!)  The mmcx port was down 6db from the u.fl port.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  What pigtails and connectors? Mmcx on the SR5 or u.fl? are these new SR5's or
older sr'5s?

  
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Blair Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

Hey all:

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik
that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...

The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end
has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.

Using the link calculator at
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a predicted rx of
-60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the SR5
cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8

On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's
winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)

With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin
of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output
power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the
MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can
not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like
amount.  This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec
in TCP mode

With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the
margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting
note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at
30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing
something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link
is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode.

Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back
again.  I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The
antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the
pigtail from one card to the other).

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some
bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or
is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db?

BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5
cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's

Thanks in advance.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006


  
  
  



-- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Blair Davis

Thank you.

Performance is not the issue here.  The issue is predicted signal 
strength vs measured signal strength.  The link works and works well.  
Thruput and latency are well within expected ranges.  I am just getting 
numbers that don't make sense.  Like the high power SR5 cards having a 
lower output that the low power CM9 cards.


Before I proceed with my planned deployment, I want to understand my 
test readings.


Julius Igugu wrote:

Upgrade to 2.9.12.   It has better wireless performance.  Chech the 
mikrotik forums.

- Original Message - From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.



Hey all:

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using 
MikroTik that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...


The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end 
has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.
Using the link calculator at 
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a predicted rx of 
-60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the 
SR5 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8


On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the 
MikroTik's winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)


With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the 
margin of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the 
CM9's output power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I 
know that the MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, 
as the CM9 can not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx 
strenth by a like amount. This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec 
in UDP and 22Mb/sec in TCP mode


With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the 
margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An 
interesting note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in 
the MikroTik at 30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik 
must be doing something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not 
put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like 
amount.  This link is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 
16Mb/sec in TCP mode.


Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back 
again. I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The 
antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving 
the pigtail from one card to the other).


Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have 
some bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik 
flakey?  Or is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db?


BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 
cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's


Thanks in advance.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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










--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Scott Reed




Seems to me there are posts that the MT setting values do not equate to dB.  Maybe on P15's MT maillist.

Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net 




-- Original Message 
---

From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 


Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:07:46 -0500 


Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings. 



 Hey all: 
 
 

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik  

 

that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup... 
 
 

The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end  

 

has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.  
 

 

Using the link calculator at  
 

http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a 
predicted rx of  
 

-60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the SR5  

 

cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8 
 
 

On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's  

 

winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's) 
 
 

With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin  

 

of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output  

 

power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the  

 

MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can  
 

not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like  

 

amount.  This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec  

 

in TCP mode 
 
 

With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the  
 

margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting  

 

note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at  
 

30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing  

 

something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.   

 

Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link  

 

is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode. 
 

 

Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back  
 

again.  I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The  

 

antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the  

 

pigtail from one card to the other). 
 
 

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some  

 

bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or 
 
 

is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db? 
 
 

BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5  
 

cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's 
 

 

Thanks in advance. 
 
 

--  
 

Blair Davis 
 
 

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240 
 
 

West Michigan Wireless ISP 
 

269-686-8648 
 
 

A division of: 
 

Camp Communication Services, INC 
 
 

--  
 

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
 

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
 

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

 

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- 
End of Original Message 
---






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Blair Davis




That makes sense as an explanation for the CM9 issue. Thanks...

Doesn't explain the low output on the SR5 cards

Scott Reed wrote:

  
  
  Seems to me there are posts that the MT setting values
do not equate to dB. Maybe on P15's MT maillist.
  
  
Scott Reed 
Owner 
NewWays 
Wireless Networking 
Network Design, Installation and Administration 
  www.nwwnet.net 
  
  
  -- Original Message ---
  
From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:07:46 -0500 
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings. 
  
 Hey all: 
 
 I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using
MikroTik 
 that I setup to test with. Let me describe the setup... 
 
 The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone. Each
end 
 has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio. 
 
 Using the link calculator at 
 http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm
I get a predicted rx of 
 -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output). Using the
SR5 
 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8 
 
 On to the real world results (all reading taken from the
MikroTik's 
 winbox. I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's) 
 
 With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the
margin 
 of error. An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's
output 
 power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results.. I know that
the 
 MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9
can 
 not put out 30db. Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a
like 
 amount. This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and
22Mb/sec 
 in TCP mode 
 
 With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the
  
 margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength! An
interesting 
 note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the
MikroTik at 
 30db to get these results. I know that the MikroTik must be doing
  
 something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out
30db.  
 Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount. This
link 
 is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode. 
 
 Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or
back 
 again. I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails. The
  
 antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for
moving the 
 pigtail from one card to the other). 
 
 Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here? Or do I just have
some 
 bad SR5 cards? Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?
Or 
 is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db? 
 
 BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the
SR5 
 cards then. Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's 
 
 Thanks in advance. 
 
 -- 
 Blair Davis 
 
 AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 
 
 West Michigan Wireless ISP 
 269-686-8648 
 
 A division of: 
 Camp Communication Services, INC 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  --- End of Original Message ---
  
  
  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006
  



-- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Paul Hendry








If it help, we got SR5s as soon as they
where available. When I put them in a real world environment on a StarOS/WRAP
set-up I saw no increase in signal quality on either end. Put the CM9s back in
and still no change.











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Blair Davis
Sent: 09 February 2006 20:10
To: Scott Reed
Cc: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MikroTik
5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.





That makes sense as an explanation for the CM9
issue. Thanks...

Doesn't explain the low output on the SR5 cards

Scott Reed wrote: 

Seems to me there are posts that the MT setting values
do not equate to dB. Maybe on P15's MT maillist. 

Scott Reed 
Owner 
NewWays 
Wireless Networking 
Network Design, Installation and Administration 
www.nwwnet.net 


-- Original Message ---

From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:07:46 -0500 
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings. 

 Hey all: 
 
 I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik 
 that I setup to test with. Let me describe the setup... 
 
 The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone. Each end

 has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio. 
 
 Using the link calculator at 
 http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm
I get a predicted rx of 
 -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output). Using the
SR5 
 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8 
 
 On to the real world results (all reading taken from the
MikroTik's 
 winbox. I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's) 
 
 With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin 
 of error. An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's
output 
 power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results.. I know that the

 MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can 
 not put out 30db. Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a
like 
 amount. This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and
22Mb/sec 
 in TCP mode 
 
 With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the 
 margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength! An
interesting 
 note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at 
 30db to get these results. I know that the MikroTik must be doing 
 something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
 
 Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount. This
link 
 is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode. 
 
 Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back 
 again. I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.
The 
 antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the 
 pigtail from one card to the other). 
 
 Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here? Or do I just have
some 
 bad SR5 cards? Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?
Or 
 is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db? 
 
 BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 
 cards then. Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's 
 
 Thanks in advance. 
 
 -- 
 Blair Davis 
 
 AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 
 
 West Michigan Wireless ISP 
 269-686-8648 
 
 A division of: 
 Camp Communication Services, INC 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- End of Original Message ---








No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006 






-- Blair DavisAOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240West Michigan Wireless ISP269-686-8648A division of:Camp Communication Services, INC






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread danlist








when they new improved Sr5 (the ones w/ the updated
MMCXs) I noticed a few changes in the way mikrotik behaves with them, I also
seem about a 6dbm improvement in those links as well 



Dan















From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Hendry
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006
5:31 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MikroTik
5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.





If it help, we got SR5s as soon as they where
available. When I put them in a real world environment on a StarOS/WRAP set-up
I saw no increase in signal quality on either end. Put the CM9s back in and
still no change.











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Blair Davis
Sent: 09 February 2006 20:10
To: Scott Reed
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MikroTik
5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.





That makes sense as an explanation for the CM9
issue. Thanks...

Doesn't explain the low output on the SR5 cards

Scott Reed wrote: 

Seems to me there are
posts that the MT setting values do not equate to dB. Maybe on P15's MT
maillist. 

Scott Reed 
Owner 
NewWays 
Wireless Networking 
Network Design, Installation and Administration 
www.nwwnet.net 


-- Original Message ---

From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org

Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:07:46 -0500 
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings. 

 Hey all: 
 
 I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik 
 that I setup to test with. Let me describe the setup... 
 
 The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone. Each end

 has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio. 
 
 Using the link calculator at 
 http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm
I get a predicted rx of 
 -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output). Using the
SR5 
 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8 
 
 On to the real world results (all reading taken from the
MikroTik's 
 winbox. I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's) 
 
 With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin 
 of error. An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's
output 
 power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results.. I know that the

 MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can 
 not put out 30db. Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a
like 
 amount. This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and
22Mb/sec 
 in TCP mode 
 
 With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the 
 margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength! An
interesting 
 note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at 
 30db to get these results. I know that the MikroTik must be doing 
 something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
 
 Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount. This
link 
 is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode. 
 
 Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back 
 again. I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.
The 
 antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the 
 pigtail from one card to the other). 
 
 Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here? Or do I just have
some 
 bad SR5 cards? Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?
Or 
 is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db? 
 
 BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 
 cards then. Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's 
 
 Thanks in advance. 
 
 -- 
 Blair Davis 
 
 AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 
 
 West Michigan Wireless ISP 
 269-686-8648 
 
 A division of: 
 Camp Communication Services, INC 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- End of Original Message ---






No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006 





-- Blair DavisAOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240West Michigan Wireless ISP269-686-8648A division of:Camp Communication Services, INC








--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


RE: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread danlist








Under advanced status the OLDER (the original sr5
cards) report 15dbm TX Power, while the new cards report 19dbm TX Power



Also the CHIP INFO under General  is different
between the original sr5 cards and the newer SR5 cards (eeprom info)













From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Paul Hendry
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006
5:31 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MikroTik
5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.





If it help, we got SR5s as soon as they
where available. When I put them in a real world environment on a StarOS/WRAP
set-up I saw no increase in signal quality on either end. Put the CM9s back in
and still no change.











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Blair Davis
Sent: 09 February 2006 20:10
To: Scott Reed
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MikroTik
5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.





That makes sense as an explanation for the CM9
issue. Thanks...

Doesn't explain the low output on the SR5 cards

Scott Reed wrote: 

Seems to me there are
posts that the MT setting values do not equate to dB. Maybe on P15's MT
maillist. 

Scott Reed 
Owner 
NewWays 
Wireless Networking 
Network Design, Installation and Administration 
www.nwwnet.net 


-- Original Message ---

From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org

Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:07:46 -0500 
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings. 

 Hey all: 
 
 I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik 
 that I setup to test with. Let me describe the setup... 
 
 The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone. Each end

 has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio. 
 
 Using the link calculator at 
 http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm
I get a predicted rx of 
 -60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output). Using the
SR5 
 cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8 
 
 On to the real world results (all reading taken from the
MikroTik's 
 winbox. I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's) 
 
 With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin 
 of error. An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's
output 
 power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results.. I know that the

 MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can 
 not put out 30db. Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a
like 
 amount. This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and
22Mb/sec 
 in TCP mode 
 
 With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the 
 margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength! An
interesting 
 note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at 
 30db to get these results. I know that the MikroTik must be doing 
 something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
 
 Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount. This
link 
 is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode. 
 
 Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back 
 again. I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.
The 
 antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the 
 pigtail from one card to the other). 
 
 Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here? Or do I just have
some 
 bad SR5 cards? Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?
Or 
 is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db? 
 
 BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5 
 cards then. Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's 
 
 Thanks in advance. 
 
 -- 
 Blair Davis 
 
 AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 
 
 West Michigan Wireless ISP 
 269-686-8648 
 
 A division of: 
 Camp Communication Services, INC 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
--- End of Original Message ---






No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006 





-- Blair DavisAOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240West Michigan Wireless ISP269-686-8648A division of:Camp Communication Services, INC








--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 08/02/2006
 


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 

  

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006
 
-- 
WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread George
Another thought is maybe it was alvarion gear or some thing similar that 
 uses a frequency converter at the antenna.

I think they get fed with a small cable.

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] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Tom DeReggi
Redline itself, does not have spectrum analasys capability, from what I 
understood.
Generally Redline user can use it to see if their radio can work well on a 
channel, by looking for loss, and what channel worksbest. but the fact that 
the Redline smashes through 5.8G fine does not mean that others are not 
hammered by it.


Using the Long coax is not that big a deal, as the loss can be factored in. 
However, if using Redline, the coax was probably the cable used to connect 
the indoor and outdoor equipment, which is spec'd to easilly do 150 feet. it 
is not used to carrt the RF signal like a standard radio, the transmitter is 
actually up at the top of the tower with the antenna. The Redline design is 
actually a preferred design because you can get away from CAt5 jacks 
(easilly soiled by weather and electricity), but not have large singal loss 
like with typical COAX carrying the RF signal to antenna.


I think you need to bring connection to f. They say no interference, and 
you know there is. Therefore that conclusion is false. however maybe you 
should just get better clarification on wether the finding was really, zero 
interference. maybe they meant that some channels are free, so 5.8Ghz will 
be a good option. Its also possible that the polarity used was opposite. Was 
the purpose to test that the Redline would work above noise floor, or to 
determine what the noise floor was in completeness?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Cliff Leboeuf [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)


We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
a. the analyzer remained in their truck
b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna.

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

Ammunition that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff


--
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] Flawed Spectrum Analysis (I think!)

2006-02-09 Thread Tom DeReggi



Agreed if that is what they did, send RF straight 
up.. However if the cable going up the tower was a redline cable between indoor 
and outdoor unit, its not straight RF signal going up the tower, it s the 
redline signal between the two compnents. Depends what they were 
doing.

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Blair Davis 

  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General 
  List 
  Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:32 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Flawed Spectrum 
  Analysis (I think!)
  With 140 ft of LMR-400 at 5.8GHz, the loss is about 15db. 
  With a good antenna topside, you might get some usable results, but not good 
  onesFor the RG6, I can't find any loss specs for freq. above 
  900MHz. At 900MHz, the loss is about 10db for 140 ft. 
  Extrapolating that to 5.8GHz, I estimate the loss would exceed 30db at 
  5.8GHz! Not gonna see much of anything!!!If you connect RG-6 
  cable directly to LMR-400 or to N-connector antennas or equipment, you have an 
  impedance mis-match. I'd expect to loose 6db or more with that mis-match 
  (at each connection!). This is on top of the cable loss with the 
  RG6. If they did not use a balun to match the RG6 cable to the N based 
  equipment, then the total loss on the RG6 'test' would exceed 42db!!! 
  Not gonna work.This 'test' was a waste of time. JohnnyO 
  wrote:
  There was no noise 
detected b/c there was no signal going into the SPEC-AN ! - This sounds like 
something you would do Cliff - sure this guy wasn't related to you ? JohnnyOOn Thu, 2006-02-09 at 10:07 -0600, Cliff 
Leboeuf wrote: 
We proposed a spectrum analysis for a client. This analysis was to be
performed with a hand-held spectrum analyzer at the height that the
equipment was to be mounted. Our offer was rejected.

However, we were asked to provide the climber for the other party's
analysis.


Their analysis was performed as follows:
1. Using a 'nice' spectrum analyzer
	a. the analyzer remained in their truck
	b. the antenna from a 5.8Ghz Redline system was hauled about
140'
	c. the original RF cable used was RG6 for 140'(duh?)
	d. the next 140' of RF cable used was LMR400
	e. we know that we shoot directly through one of the sites
surveyed with 5.8Ghz P2P link, and have 5.8 P2Mp links at two other
locations surveyed
	f. all analysis showed no RF interference (go figure!)

I'm not an RF engineer, so would someone help me to explain why there
was no 5.8Ghz interference shown at these locations even though I know
there to be other 5.8Ghz equipment hitting the towers tested.

What is the RF cable loss at 140' of using LMR400 as described above?
Also factor in about 4 connectors to adapt the RF cable from the
analyzer to the antenna. 

Is this a valid analysis, or am I wrong to comment to this customer that
I feel this analysis if flawed?

"Ammunition" that anyone is willing to supply would be appreciated as
well as advice for me to keep my mouth shut. :)

- Cliff



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 2/8/2006
  -- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

2006-02-09 Thread Tom DeReggi



What exactly is the old mmcx problem? I had some 
original batch Range2's (or is that range 3s, the 2,4Ghz G ones)that were 
giving me sparatic performance at a site, used with RfLink Amps, and the mmcx 
port.

Tom DeReggiRapidDSL  Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless 
Broadband



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Blair Davis 

  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Cc: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:04 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz 
  Radio cards and settings.
  I was/am aware of the mmcx issue and all tests were done with 
  the same u.fl pigtails on each end. When the radio cards were changed, 
  the same u.fl pigtails were used. Only the radio cards were 
  changed.They were the older SR5 cards with the mmcx problem. 
  (proven by testing!!) The mmcx port was down 6db from the u.fl 
  port.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  What pigtails and connectors? Mmcx on the SR5 or u.fl? are these new SR5's or
older sr'5s?

  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Blair Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] MikroTik 5.8GHz Radio cards and settings.

Hey all:

I'm getting some odd results here with a PtP 5.8GHz link using MikroTik
that I setup to test with.  Let me describe the setup...

The link is 7.9 miles with clear LoS and clear Frenel zone.  Each end
has a 27db grid with a 3ft LMR-400 jumper to the MikroTik radio.

Using the link calculator at
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/wireless/calc.htm I get a predicted rx of
-60.8db at each end with CM9 radio cards (17db output).  Using the SR5
cards, (400mW), I get a predicted rx of -51.8

On to the real world results  (all reading taken from the MikroTik's
winbox.  I am using version 2.9.11 on RouterBoard 230's)

With the CM9 cards, I get a measured rx of -62db, well within the margin
of error.  An interesting note here is that I must set the CM9's output
power in the MikroTik at 30db to get these results..  I know that the
MikroTik must be doing something odd with this setting, as the CM9 can
not put out 30db.  Reducing the setting drops the rx strenth by a like
amount.  This link is stable and will pass 30Mb/sec in UDP and 22Mb/sec
in TCP mode

With the SR5 cards, I get a measured rx of -66db, well outside the
margin of error and 15db below the expected rx strength!  An interesting
note here is that I must set the SR5's output power in the MikroTik at
30db to get these results.  I know that the MikroTik must be doing
something odd with this setting, as the SR5 should not put out 30db.
Reducing the setting drops the rx strength by a like amount.  This link
is stable and will pass 24Mb/sec in UDP and 16Mb/sec in TCP mode.

Nothing else is changed when I swap the SR5's for the CM9's or back
again.  I use the same antennas, cables, boards and pigtails.  The
antennas and cables are not moved between tests. (except for moving the
pigtail from one card to the other).

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong here?  Or do I just have some
bad SR5 cards?  Or is the tx power setting in the MikroTik flakey?  Or
is the tx power setting relative db not absolute db?

BTW, I will be changing one end to a sector and wish to use the SR5
cards then.  Otherwise I'd be happy with the -62 on the CM9's

Thanks in advance.

--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.3/254 - Release Date: 02/08/2006


  -- 
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC

  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] Good news and bad news today

2006-02-09 Thread Rudy Worrell
Mac,

I like the million WISP idea.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Good news and bad news today


  I have complete confidence in our leadership thus far and remember 
that we are an infant organization. I think with the election tomorrow 
and continued support from those who are going into office we are well 
on our way to having a jam up jelly good organization. I know the heart 
of every one of the men who have been instrumental in putting this 
organization together from day one. I know that they want an industry 
owned, member driven power house that will have a say in Washington as 
well as in individual States. The men we will see in office Wednesday 
are the ones who have been the movers and shakers in this industry for 
years and have my utmost allegiance and respect. I cant say that I have 
agreed with everything, but then I dont agree with everything that goes 
on under my own roof either :-)

   I think what we need more than anything to accomplish what we need is 
a very large mouth! That mouth can only be trumpeted by a mass of 
individuals coming together under one umbrella - - WISPA and jointly 
having WISPA speak for us as a whole. I look at what the Gay rights 
activists have accomplished with their lobbying (not that I agree there 
either) although the gay population is really not that large. Its just 
well funded, out spoken, very organized, very active and very seen 
across the country. IMHO we to will have to use some of their tactics, 
be very loud and obnoxious to the point of being pushy and refuse to NOT 
be heard and seen. I think WISPA is the very thing for this industry as 
it is a one of a kind. Its made up of folks like you and me, and Larsen 
and Scriv and Harnish and so on - - just every day good ole boys with an 
agenda. I think that when we hold hands ( I am not gay) and stand up we 
will have to be heard. I dont think that we can be ignored if we go 
about this the right way.

 Do you remember the million man march in DC? There really wasnt half 
that many people, but it was the attention they stirred up that makes it 
so memorable. That was in 1995!!! How about we have a march in DC up the 
steps to the FCC's offices all the while surfing the net and sending 
emails to reporters back in our home states, live web cameras rolling 
while Scrivner gives us a whooda thunk it speech. I think there are a 
lot of things we can do once this election is over and done. The 
election is the first step toward accomplishing great things in this 
industry.

The next real step is membership!! WHO AINT PAID THEM DUES???

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales)
www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)
318.728.8600  
318.728.9600
318.303.4227




Rudolph Worrell wrote:

Mac,

I am with you.  We need to be very aware but also plan and propose so that
we 
are not spoken for in an ill way.

One thing that would really help here and on the paid side of things is to
have 
clear goals, leadership, and direction.



Quoting Mac Dearman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

  

  I say whoooa mule!

I think before we jump the gun we ought to see what lies ahead of 
us. If they plan on taxing the free spectrum it will have to be done at 
the manufacturers level. There is no way to tax us per device and if we 
are taxed per user  - - - then we will just pass that on to the end 
user. Ultimately all taxes will have to be passed down to the end user - 
it always has been - - -it always will be. I dont mind paying the taxes, 
its all that damn collecting and book keeping I hate. It seems that 
Uncle Sams money always get intermingled with mine and then I try to 
find ways to keep it :-)
  
  From what I have read earlier today its not a done deal ad 
its just talk at this time. We do need to keep our ears to the ground 
and our eyes open though and if we can lead the horse rather than eat 
dust from the Cavalry ahead of us would be a choice place to be.

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC
Authorized Barracuda Reseller
MikroTik RouterOS Certified
www.inetsouth.com
www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales)
www.RadioResponse.org (Katrina Relief)
318.728.8600  
318.728.9600
318.303.4227




John Scrivner wrote:



How about if we propose to the Congress that they allow a per base 
station license to be paid annually for broadband use that gives first 
in rights to those who launch broadband in a given geography in the 
channel registered for each base station? Then everyone would have the 
ability to have access to spectrum with some rights to prevent 
interference and have something that investors could be comfortable 
with investing in. This would eliminate the spectrum class split we 
have now where some have rights of licensed use and others (like us) 
cannot play in