Re: [WISPA] Best Network Card

2006-02-26 Thread Ron Wallace
Try ebay, I found 10 3COM - 3c-905's for $36 including shipping, I think they are unbeatable.
-Original Message-From: Jenco Wireless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:05 AMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best Network Card
Anyone have a good source for these ??


Thanks,

Brad H

On 1/29/06, Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Definately the Intel EtherExpress Pro.
Mark NashNetwork EngineerUnwiredOnline.Net350 Holly StreetJunction City, OR 97448http://www.uwol.net 541-998-541-998-5599 fax


- Original Message - 
From: Ron Wallace 
To: WISP ; WISPA ; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Best Network Card

To All,

What is the most reliable Network card, I have been using 3com 905c, for my MT server, they are discontinued. What would you all recommend? 

I don't want to have to buy 5 cheap ones and keep replacing till I get one that works, I've been changing-out a lot of gear this winter. Bad choices on my part. Another story, another time. 
Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 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.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] Switch recommendations

2006-02-26 Thread Pete Davis
The switch I am looking to replace is at my core, tying my APs together, 
and to the main router.


The one I am looking at/leaning to is the Dell Powerconnect 2708. Its 
Web manageable, and has some pretty impressive features, including 
broadcast storm control VLan tagging, and port mirroring. Pretty 
impressive for $76.


http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pwcnt/en/pwcnt_27xx_specs.pdf

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pwcnt_2708?c=uscs=04l=ens=bsd


Pete Davis
NoDial.net

John J. Thomas wrote:

Where are these being used?  If it is at the customer edge, it will be 
different than if at your core. The Netgear FS726T runs between 100 and 200 
dollars and supports up to 8000 MAC adresses.

John


  

-Original Message-




  

From: Pete Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 07:05 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Switch recommendations

I was wondering what switch has the largest mac address table. I don't 
need more than 6 ports, but the $19.95 cheapy switches that my AP 
Bridges all go into might be hurting my performance, I am thinking. If 
shelling out $100 or so for a good switch makes sense, I am willing to 
get one, but I don't want to spend money where its not needed.


What does the professional ISP use?
--
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-26 Thread Brad Larson
BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes
per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times
that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference
shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad



-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a much better choice

John


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.
jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
 PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
 dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
 of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
 utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
 destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
 a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
 within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
 and relatively small panel antennas.
 
 Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
 spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
 enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
 reasons it was allocated for.
 
 One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
 to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
 not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
 high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
 Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
 corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
 better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
 wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
 you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
 RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
 additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
 increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
 is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
 super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
 because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
 give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
 is using.  The mesh provider has options.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
 Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
 mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
 backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
 backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
 times greater.

 jack


 ISPlists wrote:

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
 have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
 town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
 great.
  Thanks,
 Steve


 -- 
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: 

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta
Here in Atlanta, Metrocom reported that it took 4 times the average 
number of nodes to provide coverage. Technology has changed a good deal 
since then, but then again they were also using 900Mhz, which has a lot 
more success with our pine trees than 2.4Ghz.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:


BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes
per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times
that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference
shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad



-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a much better choice

John


 


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.

  jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

   

Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
and relatively small panel antennas.


Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
reasons it was allocated for.


One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
is using.  The mesh provider has options.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


 

Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

   

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
great.

Thanks,
Steve

 


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free 

[WISPA] cancel my subscription

2006-02-26 Thread FRANK MAXWELL

please cancel my subscription.

Thank You.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread A. Huppenthal

I haven't read your summary yet, but would like to chime in a bit on Mesh...

When the DoD developed TCP/IP, they built it to be robust under war-time 
conditions. This means fault tolerant, rerouting, change-over, change-back.


It would wonderful to hear the Mesh scientists (not sales people) 
describe what it is about mesh that gives it an edge over TCP/IP 
protocols, including their routing protocols.


I'll read your notes with some interest, in the hopes they'll shed some 
light on this fundemental question. Else, historically mesh has been a 
crapola of marketing hype, generalizations, and I have it nailed crap 
intended to fuel someone's new car or new house, new sales organization 
- and not provide any real customer/network operator benefit. In my 
humble opinion.


I personally have spoken to Microsoft's development leader on Mesh and 
had it explained that dozens of PhD's were working on Mesh solutions at 
MS. Ah, okay, I'm guess Motorola and 10 other companies are doing this 
as well.


Has anyone deployed a TCP/IP network that's fault tolerant - along the 
lines of the DoD's intent for the network? Using 'Mesh' or otherwise.


I'm all ear.



Matt Liotta wrote:
Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta
The internet is the largest mesh network in operation today. However, 
there is no comparison to internet routing and redundancy to that of 
private network routing and redundancy. The internet is so huge that 
smart routing decisions can only be made at the edge. With a private 
network, the size is generally manageable enough to make smarter routing 
decisions throughout. Take BGP for instance, which is used to 
dynamically manage routes on the internet. It can take anywhere from 4 
to 10 minutes to fully resolve a route flap when a link goes down. 
Compare that with your average IGP, which takes only seconds to fully 
resolve a route flap.


-Matt

A. Huppenthal wrote:

I haven't read your summary yet, but would like to chime in a bit on 
Mesh...


When the DoD developed TCP/IP, they built it to be robust under 
war-time conditions. This means fault tolerant, rerouting, 
change-over, change-back.


It would wonderful to hear the Mesh scientists (not sales people) 
describe what it is about mesh that gives it an edge over TCP/IP 
protocols, including their routing protocols.


I'll read your notes with some interest, in the hopes they'll shed 
some light on this fundemental question. Else, historically mesh has 
been a crapola of marketing hype, generalizations, and I have it 
nailed crap intended to fuel someone's new car or new house, new 
sales organization - and not provide any real customer/network 
operator benefit. In my humble opinion.


I personally have spoken to Microsoft's development leader on Mesh and 
had it explained that dozens of PhD's were working on Mesh solutions 
at MS. Ah, okay, I'm guess Motorola and 10 other companies are doing 
this as well.


Has anyone deployed a TCP/IP network that's fault tolerant - along the 
lines of the DoD's intent for the network? Using 'Mesh' or otherwise.


I'm all ear.



Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Dustin Jurman








Hey Matt,



It would be nice to see this in a word
document or Text based so one could add comments to your work. 



DSJ











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006
2:56 PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory





Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that
I put together in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share it. Feel
free to pick it apart.

I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was written in a
generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it can be applied to
various transport technologies from fiber to wireless; though I do provide an
example using wireless P2P links. Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or
ad-hoc networks would require special coverage.

-Matt






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta

The file is attached as RTF.

-Matt

Dustin Jurman wrote:


Hey Matt,

 

It would be nice to see this in a word document or Text based so one 
could add comments to your work. 

 


DSJ

 




*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*On Behalf Of *Matt Liotta

*Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:56 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

 

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt



Title: Index of file:///Users/mliotta/Desktop/Basic Mesh Theory.rtfd/





Index of file:///Users/mliotta/Desktop/Basic Mesh Theory.rtfd/

Up to higher level directory

 TXT.rtf
 6 KB
 2/26/06
 2:44:45 PM


 mesh.jpg
 21 KB
 2/25/06
 7:18:06 AM


 ring.jpg
 14 KB
 2/25/06
 7:09:12 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Dustin Jurman
It didn't attach correctly.

DSJ

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

The file is attached as RTF.

-Matt

Dustin Jurman wrote:

 Hey Matt,

  

 It would be nice to see this in a word document or Text based so one 
 could add comments to your work. 

  

 DSJ

  

 

 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 *On Behalf Of *Matt Liotta
 *Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2006 2:56 PM
 *To:* WISPA General List
 *Subject:* [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

  

 Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
 in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
 which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
 wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
 it. Feel free to pick it apart.

 I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
 written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
 can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
 wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
 Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
 special coverage.

 -Matt






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] QB 20 issue

2006-02-26 Thread chris cooper


We have a couple of legacy Quick Bridge links that die simultaneously
for no apparent reason.  All are 5.8, two different locations, different
Vlans.  When we reboot them, the radios come back, slowly reestablish a
link but show no activity on the Ethernet side.  Its happened twice and
has us scratching our heads.  Any ideas much appreciated.

Chris


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Dawn

Matt,
Are these actual costs?
What is the coverage area?

Thanks,
Dawn


Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
 



---
---

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta
I used street pricing for the radios in question, but certainly didn't 
cover pricing on any other items that would be required. Coverage area 
wasn't taken into consideration as it has no bearing on topology.


-Matt

Dawn wrote:


Matt,
Are these actual costs?
What is the coverage area?

Thanks,
Dawn


Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
 



---
---



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Good Evening Folks

2006-02-26 Thread John Scrivner
WOW! Boggs is here! And Victoria! and Jack Unger! What happened? I went 
to Argentina and you guys all came to WISPA to hang out? I guess I need 
to run off to the other side of the planet more often. Now don't leave 
just cause I am back OK!

:-)
Welcome gang. Glad to see all of you.
Scriv



Roger Boggs wrote:


Thanks Tom - and all others.  Good to hear from all the old names/faces.

I've learned more about copper cable crimpers here in the last two 
days than I have

from any other wireLESS list I've been on in the last two years!

:-)



At 11:22 AM 2/23/2006, you wrote:

Its always good to hear a chime in from one of the original early 
guys in the game, now and then.

Lots of stuff happening here in WISP land.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Jeromie Reeves
There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh. 
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the 
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh suck and fiber/copper mesh's not suck. The solution is multi 
radio units that can select peers based

on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss, ect)

Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta
My example used wireless P2P links, which has no inherent weakness over 
fiber P2P links from a topology point-of-view. It would appear you are 
falling into the same trap as others by forcing mesh to be something it 
is not. Mesh is just a network topology; no more, no less. Sure it is 
possible to come up with specific examples of wireless-based mesh 
networks being terrible ideas, but that doesn't mean there is anything 
wrong with mesh itself. I would argue that in almost all cases the 
topology is not what is at fault.


-Matt

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh. 
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the 
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh suck and fiber/copper mesh's not suck. The solution is multi 
radio units that can select peers based
on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss, 
ect)


Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or 
edited, which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since 
I only wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just 
share it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written 
it can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would 
require special coverage.


-Matt






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Basic Mesh Theory

2006-02-26 Thread Jack Unger

Jeromie,

You raise some good points... and here are some more differences between 
Matt's fully-meshed WIRED network example and the real-world conditions 
under which WIRELESS mesh networks are so often deployed today.


1) REROUTING - Only a node failure or a high peak traffic load would 
normally force a routing path change on a fiber/copper network. On a 
wireless mesh, routing path changes will also result from interference 
caused by other same-network nodes, interference from other networks, 
and interference from other wireless non-network sources. Routing path 
changes will also be caused by the movement of obstructions and other 
rf-reflective objects such as trees and vehicles.


2. CAPACITY - Fiber/copper networks typically start out with 
high-capacity (compared to wireless) full-duplex links. Wireless mesh 
networks start out with low-capacity half-duplex links.


3. CONNECTIVITY - Fiber/copper mesh network nodes have two or more paths 
to other nodes. Real-world wireless mesh networks may contain nodes 
that, in some cases (the traditional mesh definition not withstanding) 
only have a path to one other node. For example, obstructions may block 
paths to all but one (or even no) other nodes.


4. ENGINEERING - Fiber/copper mesh networks are typically properly 
engineered for traffic-carrying capacity, QoS, latency, etc. 
Real-world wireless mesh networks are typically deployed in near-total 
ignorance of the Layer 1 (wireless layer) conditions. That's the great 
attraction (IMHO) of  muni-mesh networking today. These networks are 
thrown up in the belief that they don't need any Layer 1 design or 
engineering expertise and that this will allow for quick, widespread 
deployment. Last time I looked however, there was still no free lunch. 
I predict that the muni
mesh networks that are thrown up today (Philadelphia will be a prime 
example, unless it's re-engineered correctly) will fail and fail 
miserably to meet the high expectations that have been raised like free 
or low-cost broadband for all. In addition, muni mesh networks today 
typically lack adequate traffic engineering and performance testing 
under load.


The way that muni networks are being marketed today will likely lead to 
a black eye for the entire license-free wireless broadband industry 
within 18 to 24 months.


I'm not saying that wireless mesh networks should never be used. There 
are certain (obstructed, short-link, low capacity) environments where 
they will be the best, most economical solution. I'm just saying that 
the false claims and marketing hype surrounding MOST (and let me repeat, 
MOST) of today's mesh networking claims, particularly mesh network nodes 
that contain just a single 2.4 GHz radio are going to come back to bite 
both the vendors and the cities that deploy these networks without 
sufficient wireless knowledge in the false belief that wireless mesh 
networks are just plug-and-play.


Sorry about my rant, but other than a few responsible 
multiple-radio/multiple-band mesh equipment vendors, the current mesh 
marketing/hype environment is in a word - disgraceful.


jack


Jeromie Reeves wrote:

There is a very big difference from fiber mesh and wireless mesh. 
Wireless is classicly a bunch of HDX links
where fiber is PtP links. Your example doesnt make it clear that the 
difference is what cause's 802.11[a|b|g]
mesh suck and fiber/copper mesh's not suck. The solution is multi 
radio units that can select peers based

on more then just essid (channel, hop count to the edge, packet loss, ect)

Jeromie

Matt Liotta wrote:

Attached is a quick rundown of basic mesh theory that I put together 
in light of the recent thread. It hasn't been peer reviewed or edited, 
which I would normally do before sharing publicly. But since I only 
wrote because of a thread on this list I figured I would just share 
it. Feel free to pick it apart.


I do want to point out a couple of things though. First, this was 
written in a generic way only covering mesh as a theory. As written it 
can be applied to various transport technologies from fiber to 
wireless; though I do provide an example using wireless P2P links. 
Applying mesh theory to wireless P2MP or ad-hoc networks would require 
special coverage.


-Matt






--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Good Evening Folks

2006-02-26 Thread Jack Unger

Scriv,

Wouldn't think of leavin' - it's good to be back in touch again.

jack


John Scrivner wrote:

WOW! Boggs is here! And Victoria! and Jack Unger! What happened? I went 
to Argentina and you guys all came to WISPA to hang out? I guess I need 
to run off to the other side of the planet more often. Now don't leave 
just cause I am back OK!

:-)
Welcome gang. Glad to see all of you.
Scriv



Roger Boggs wrote:


Thanks Tom - and all others.  Good to hear from all the old names/faces.

I've learned more about copper cable crimpers here in the last two 
days than I have

from any other wireLESS list I've been on in the last two years!

:-)



At 11:22 AM 2/23/2006, you wrote:

Its always good to hear a chime in from one of the original early 
guys in the game, now and then.

Lots of stuff happening here in WISP land.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband






--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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