Re: [WISPA] Lost the link...
On 6/16/06, Blair Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A few weeks ago, I ran across a 2.4GHz 500mW amp that was a small cylinder with an n-male on one end and an n-female on the other. Slightly larger than the n-connecters and about 4-5 inches long But I seem to have lost the link to it. Anyone else seen this? Could this be it? This amp is not 500mW but 1W. http://www.shireeninc.com/?page_id=79 -Eric -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5 Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on the same channel. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform using 50-50 up/down data ratio. Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using 25-75 up/down ratio. Patrick Jon Langeler wrote: Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
What I'm saying is data rates are only one part of doing voip. I know what Canopy can do...You said "I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls". Data rates have very little to do with a scaling voip system with and without internet. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: >John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has >an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small >packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad > >-Original Message- >From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! >:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. >Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over >the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude >that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... > >Jon Langeler >Michwave Tech. > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I >>have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a >> >> >real > > >>issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) >>for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios >> >> >support > > >>QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL >>sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, >>20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a >>Trango sector. >> >>Patrick >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >>Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to >>partners, if offering wholesale transport services. >>For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as >> >> >long > > >>as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons >> >> > > > >>that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to >>allow larger packets? >>I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally >> >> >limit > > >>its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely >>could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their >> >> >own > > >>network. >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Our setup requires the following: >>> >>>1500 bytes for payload >>>4 bytes for VLANs >>>4 bytes for LDP >>>4 bytes for EoMPLS header >>>18 bytes for Ethernet header >>> >>>That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since >>>that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 >>>is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to >>>backhaul an MPLS network. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 > > > 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking > > > for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from > > > > > beta >testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the >Texas >panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a > > > > > link >i
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e
[WISPA] Lost the link...
A few weeks ago, I ran across a 2.4GHz 500mW amp that was a small cylinder with an n-male on one end and an n-female on the other. Slightly larger than the n-connecters and about 4-5 inches long But I seem to have lost the link to it. Anyone else seen this? -- 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] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 102437.02/4432 44.82/5366 128038.93/3743 45.99/4422 151836.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: >Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort >for carriers. > We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. >How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an >important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to >support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz >solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger >Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. > > > We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. >If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that >with whatever your current technology permits? > > > I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses (191). * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 15/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
On the Advantage line that may be true. The numbers I am using were given to me these past two weeks from current Canopy users with large networks. You have to remember, with most systems small packets drive down the usable capacity significantly. You are right that I need to do another batch of side to side testing, especially with 4.0. Patrick -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: >As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I >have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real >issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) >for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support >QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL >sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, >20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a >Trango sector. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to >partners, if offering wholesale transport services. >For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long > >as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons >that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to >allow larger packets? >I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit > >its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely >could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own > >network. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > > > >>Our setup requires the following: >> >>1500 bytes for payload >>4 bytes for VLANs >>4 bytes for LDP >>4 bytes for EoMPLS header >>18 bytes for Ethernet header >> >>That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since >>that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 >>is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to >>backhaul an MPLS network. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >> >>>Matt, >>> >>>I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. >>> >>>Patrick Leary >>>AVP Marketing >>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 >>>6:33 AM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >>> >>>Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking >>>for an MTU of 1532. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from >>>beta >>> >>> >>> testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a >>>link >>> >>> >>> is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version >>>(antenna >>> >>> >>> built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. >>>It >>> >>> >>> is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 102437.02/4432 44.82/5366 128038.93/3743 45.99/4422 151836.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: >Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort >for carriers. > We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. >How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an >important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to >support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz >solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger >Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. > > > We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. >If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that >with whatever your current technology permits? > > > I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses (191). * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Outsource 24 Hour Technical Support for HotSpot
We have installed a set of HotSpots for a local Hotel. They are looking to us to provide 24 hour technical support for their clients on an as-needed basis. Since we are a small shop and I have no desire to answer calls at all hours in the morning, we are looking to see if there is a way we can outsource these calls. I'd imagine that there would be at the most 1 or 2 calls per day from this one customer. If you have any ideas, I'd appreciate knowing. Kelly Shaw Pure Internet www.pure.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
As you guys know I'm no routing expert. Take this with a grain of salt I've got two thoughts on all of this. First is, any technology we deploy on a software side should ride the existing network. I'm talking big picture not niche markets. A vpn should work as well on wifi as it does on dsl, cable, t-1, ds3 or whatever. If they can't make it do that we should use a different solution. I'm lumping vlans, vpn etc. into that statement. I'm not saying that there aren't better ways to do things, but I'm tired of trying to tweak MY network so that some lazy software guy can build his perfect solution and sell it to an unsuspecting customer. He should make his NEW stuff work with my existing stuff! Even if that means he has to ham string it a bit. If he wants to sell a version with more capabilities and my customer wants to pay me for more access that's fine. Next, on a wireless network big packets can be a very dangerous thing. They are fine if you have no multipath or interference. Certainly we can make the network run faster by sending bigger packets. But the bigger the packet the more likely it will be to be damaged and need to be resent. I've seen people have to REDUCE the size of the packets they send out in order to get their networks stabilized. Careful what you ask for :-). 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: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it
Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc
I attached the original FCC nprm to the email. Basically the FCC is asking if they should allocate 20 mhz (in two 10 mhz chunks) for testing. The spectrum will be part federal and part non federal spectrum. Here's the amazing kicker, this will be already allocated spectrum! They are looking at doing some experiments to determine interference issues and avoidance to incumbent users. At least that's how I read this. To me, this is the first real step in the idea that there could be unlicensed underlays on most if not all spectrum. This could and should be a huge deal. We've gotta find a way to get more members so we can hire someone to take over day to day operations of wispa so we can all pay more attention to issues like this! grin With TV bands, USF reform and this, there's an awful lot to keep track of on the government side of things. 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: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, My apologies. I honestly do not even know what this is. Can you give us a 50,000 foot overview of what this is? I guess I missed the call to do something about whatever this is. I have been a bit out of touch with these issues lately. My apologies. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Of for God's sake! Only one response and that's not even from a WISPA member Can I at least get a "looks good to me" response if you guys aren't going to take the time to give me some feedback on what to say on this issue? Ken, my comments below. 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: "Ken DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, Comments in-line, just where you'd expect to find them. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: 1 a: We believe that there should be multiple tests run at the same time but in different areas. Possibly on a rotating basis so that each test can be run via different technologies in different environments. We believe that any new technologies should be open to testing on a non interference basis. I would leave this alone - let the FCC decide how this aspect of the test should be run. I can see value (for example) of two competing tests being run in the same area to show how the interference issue can be measured and possibly ignored due to lack of any tangible problem. Part of the problem with this whole idea will be the incombants not wanting to share. We also want to see valid data on what happens to the incombant. This means that we need to limit the possibilities of harmful interference. At least that's my take on it. 1 b: We believe that the biggest challenge is going to be creating a technological and regulatory environment that’s auto correcting. We want to see spectrum fully utilized. However, changing technology would require constantly changing rule sets if it were to be too granular. Too loose and the rules will get abused. We’d like to see a balance that sets the rules in such a way that people can build/use devices that use any open spectrum that they can find. Inefficient radios that don’t keep up with technological advances should be encouraged to leave the market at some point though. Possibly by setting a certification sunset. Certainly all existing devices would be grandfathered, new ones would have to be recertified after x years (3 to 5???) though. I find this to be a dangerous precedent. If full use of spectrum is the goal, it seems that the License Exempt "experiment" has done a pretty good job of pushing the limits of that goal. Yeah, we've done well so far. From my perspective, I would like to see a "loosening" of the rules in specific bands that are easily accessible using off the shelf WiFi equipment. In addition, I want to see the 6GHz band have the six foot antenna rule stricken from the regulation and a reasonable EIRP mandated (like 4 watts plus unlimited antenna gain?) so that we can start to use a "clean" band to deliver communications services in any area that interference would not be a problem is. As a
Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc
What is baseline testing in your context? Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Ron Wallace To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc In fact I can't believe baseline testing is not a prerequsite, hell I still can't spell.>-Original Message->From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 06:37 PM>To: 'Ken DiPietro'>Cc: 'WISPA General List', 'POSTMASTER'>Subject: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc>>Of for God's sake! Only one response and that's not even from a WISPA >member>>Can I at least get a "looks good to me" response if you guys aren't going to >take the time to give me some feedback on what to say on this issue?>>Ken, my comments below.>>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: "Ken DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John >Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:42 AM>Subject: Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, Comments in-line, just where you'd expect to find them. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:>> 1 a: We believe that there should be multiple tests run at the same time >>> but in different areas. Possibly on a rotating basis so that each test >>> can be run via different technologies in different environments. We >>> believe that any new technologies should be open to testing on a non >>> interference basis.>>> I would leave this alone - let the FCC decide how this aspect of the test >> should be run. I can see value (for example) of two competing tests being >> run in the same area to show how the interference issue can be measured >> and possibly ignored due to lack of any tangible problem.>>Part of the problem with this whole idea will be the incombants not wanting >to share. We also want to see valid data on what happens to the incombant. >This means that we need to limit the possibilities of harmful interference.>>At least that's my take on it.>> 1 b: We believe that the biggest challenge is going to be creating a >>> technological and regulatory environment that’s auto correcting. We want >>> to see spectrum fully utilized. However, changing technology would >>> require constantly changing rule sets if it were to be too granular. Too >>> loose and the rules will get abused. We’d like to see a balance that sets >>> the rules in such a way that people can build/use devices that use any >>> open spectrum that they can find. Inefficient radios that don’t keep up >>> with technological advances should be encouraged to leave the market at >>> some point though. Possibly by setting a certification sunset. Certainly >>> all existing devices would be grandfathered, new ones would have to be >>> recertified after x years (3 to 5???) though.>>> I find this to be a dangerous precedent. If full use of spectrum is the >> goal, it seems that the License Exempt "experiment" has done a pretty good >> job of pushing the limits of that goal.>>Yeah, we've done well so far.> From my perspective, I would like to see a "loosening" of the rules in >> specific bands that are easily accessible using off the shelf WiFi >> equipment. In addition, I want to see the 6GHz band have the six foot >> antenna rule stricken from the regulation and a reasonable EIRP mandated >> (like 4 watts plus unlimited antenna gain?) so that we can start to use a >> "clean" band to deliver communications services in any area that >> interference would not be a problem is. As a specific example, I would >> guess (no, I haven't confirmed it) that there is zero usage of the 6GHz >> band in my area or if there is it is localized for long distance PtP links >> and anything I would deploy here "on the ground" would not affect these >> PtP links with their very high gain antennas.>>Those are all good points but not the point of this nprm as I read it.>> 2: We think that multiple tests should be allowed to run simultaneously >>> in many markets around the country.>>> Absolutely.> 3: Tests should span from fallow to highly used spectrum. We believe that >>
Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc
I specifically left out the whitespaces because they are already on the table and may see movement at any time. I didn't want to put another 2 year hold on them Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Ron Wallace To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, I just read it. I have many installs, I'm an old guy, I'll respond Sunday. and it "Looks good to me". Accept there is no or little mention of the TV White Spaces, I think they would be perfect for a project like this. And Baseline testing prior to the experiment is an absolute must.>-Original Message->From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 06:37 PM>To: 'Ken DiPietro'>Cc: 'WISPA General List', 'POSTMASTER'>Subject: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc>>Of for God's sake! Only one response and that's not even from a WISPA >member>>Can I at least get a "looks good to me" response if you guys aren't going to >take the time to give me some feedback on what to say on this issue?>>Ken, my comments below.>>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: "Ken DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John >Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:42 AM>Subject: Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, Comments in-line, just where you'd expect to find them. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:>> 1 a: We believe that there should be multiple tests run at the same time >>> but in different areas. Possibly on a rotating basis so that each test >>> can be run via different technologies in different environments. We >>> believe that any new technologies should be open to testing on a non >>> interference basis.>>> I would leave this alone - let the FCC decide how this aspect of the test >> should be run. I can see value (for example) of two competing tests being >> run in the same area to show how the interference issue can be measured >> and possibly ignored due to lack of any tangible problem.>>Part of the problem with this whole idea will be the incombants not wanting >to share. We also want to see valid data on what happens to the incombant. >This means that we need to limit the possibilities of harmful interference.>>At least that's my take on it.>> 1 b: We believe that the biggest challenge is going to be creating a >>> technological and regulatory environment that’s auto correcting. We want >>> to see spectrum fully utilized. However, changing technology would >>> require constantly changing rule sets if it were to be too granular. Too >>> loose and the rules will get abused. We’d like to see a balance that sets >>> the rules in such a way that people can build/use devices that use any >>> open spectrum that they can find. Inefficient radios that don’t keep up >>> with technological advances should be encouraged to leave the market at >>> some point though. Possibly by setting a certification sunset. Certainly >>> all existing devices would be grandfathered, new ones would have to be >>> recertified after x years (3 to 5???) though.>>> I find this to be a dangerous precedent. If full use of spectrum is the >> goal, it seems that the License Exempt "experiment" has done a pretty good >> job of pushing the limits of that goal.>>Yeah, we've done well so far.> From my perspective, I would like to see a "loosening" of the rules in >> specific bands that are easily accessible using off the shelf WiFi >> equipment. In addition, I want to see the 6GHz band have the six foot >> antenna rule stricken from the regulation and a reasonable EIRP mandated >> (like 4 watts plus unlimited antenna gain?) so that we can start to use a >> "clean" band to deliver communications services in any area that >> interference would not be a problem is. As a specific example, I would >> guess (no, I haven't confirmed it) that there is zero usage of the 6GHz >> band in my area or if there is it is localized for long distance PtP links >> and anything I would deploy here "on the ground" would not affect these >> PtP links wit
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I have seen testing on 4.0 BreezeAccess VL with 64 k packets where the new 4.0 outperformed version 3.1.25 by a very wide margin. Downstream throughput of 40.29 meg's per second with 59,952 frames per second passed! Data from 3.1.25 was 2.46 meg's and 3,662 frames per second. Most 5 GHz solutions I have seen tested are well below 3662 frames per second with 64k packets. Testing of 4.0 with and without internet has been very impressive. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across. This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet link via a 100Mbps fiber. Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too > many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the > most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. > We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load > up any single roof with too many radios. > > -Matt > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a > > single tower? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > > >> We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they > >> are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or > >> they are just data customers. All of our customers with any > >> significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would > >> say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that > >> over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> Patrick Leary wrote: > >> > >>> So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to > >>> hear more > >>> about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it > >>> well or > >>> is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per > >>> sector > >>> so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked > >>> to many > >>> very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we > >>> have been > >>> consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up > >>> against 8 > >>> calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not > >>> seem like > >>> enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the > >>> softswitch. > >>> How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? > >>> > >>> Patrick Leary > >>> AVP Marketing > >>> Alvarion, Inc. > >>> o: 650.314.2628 > >>> c: 760.580.0080 > >>> Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, > >>> 2006 6:47 AM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >>> > >>> Patrick Leary wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 > > >>> > >>> > >>> transort > >>> > >>> > for carriers. > > > >>> > >>> > >>> We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from > >>> us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers > >>> and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, > >>> almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed > >>> wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them > >>> layer 2 transport. > >>> > >>> > >>> > How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an > important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you > plan to > support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz > solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger > Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP > >>> customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is > >>> a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly > >>> prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also > >>> wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require > >>> it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. > >>> > >>> > >>> > If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are W
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across. This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet link via a 100Mbps fiber. Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too > many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the > most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. > We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load > up any single roof with too many radios. > > -Matt > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a > > single tower? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > > >> We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they > >> are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or > >> they are just data customers. All of our customers with any > >> significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would > >> say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that > >> over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. > >> > >> -Matt > >> > >> Patrick Leary wrote: > >> > >>> So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to > >>> hear more > >>> about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it > >>> well or > >>> is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per > >>> sector > >>> so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked > >>> to many > >>> very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we > >>> have been > >>> consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up > >>> against 8 > >>> calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not > >>> seem like > >>> enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the > >>> softswitch. > >>> How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? > >>> > >>> Patrick Leary > >>> AVP Marketing > >>> Alvarion, Inc. > >>> o: 650.314.2628 > >>> c: 760.580.0080 > >>> Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, > >>> 2006 6:47 AM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >>> > >>> Patrick Leary wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 > > >>> > >>> > >>> transort > >>> > >>> > for carriers. > > > >>> > >>> > >>> We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from > >>> us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers > >>> and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, > >>> almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed > >>> wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them > >>> layer 2 transport. > >>> > >>> > >>> > How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an > important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you > plan to > support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz > solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger > Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP > >>> customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is > >>> a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly > >>> prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also > >>> wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require > >>> it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. > >>> > >>> > >>> > If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for > doing that > with whatever your current technology permits? > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that > >>> we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in > >>> the industry. > >>> > >>> -Matt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Data
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: >As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I >have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real >issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) >for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support >QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL >sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, >20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a >Trango sector. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to >partners, if offering wholesale transport services. >For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long > >as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons >that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to >allow larger packets? >I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit > >its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely >could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own > >network. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > > > >>Our setup requires the following: >> >>1500 bytes for payload >>4 bytes for VLANs >>4 bytes for LDP >>4 bytes for EoMPLS header >>18 bytes for Ethernet header >> >>That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since >>that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 >>is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to >>backhaul an MPLS network. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >> >>>Matt, >>> >>>I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. >>> >>>Patrick Leary >>>AVP Marketing >>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 >>>6:33 AM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >>> >>>Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking >>>for an MTU of 1532. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from >>>beta >>> >>> >>> testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a >>>link >>> >>> >>> is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version >>>(antenna >>> >>> >>> built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. >>>It >>> >>> >>> is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick >>> >>> >>-- >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsub
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load up any single roof with too many radios. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Sure, it's not like we can't put more than one Canopy backhaul on the same channel. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] BreezeACCESS VL news - 750% VoIP improvement
Can you give more details on the versions that require a license key? What will they cost? What features will they have specifically? What is FIPS 197? Could this FIPS 197 service allow for service to medical facilities also? I would like to be able to approach the hospitals, doctor's offices, clinics, etc. and let them know I can build them compliant secured wireless offerings for their data over my wireless network. Could this do that? What about financial data? Banks? Thanks, Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: Si I may have mentioned this briefly in passing, but version 4.0 for BreezeACCESS VL and BreezeACCESS 4900 will be commercially launched in the U.S. and Canada on July 3rd. Version 4.0 is the most major firmware re-write ever done on VL and it was specifically created to produce massive VoIP benefits for those operators wanting to a VoIP play along side of the data. It also can be used to for major video gains as well. With this re-write we enabled VoIP QoS that results in over MOS 4 (toll quality) voice performance while massively increasing the number of calls to 288 calls per sector (G.711 CODEC). The previous BreezeACCESS VL version had a MOS of 3.74 and 40 calls per sector. This specific feature, called "MAP" (multimedia application prioritization, also called WLP - wireless link prioritization), will be available in a license key and only those wanting to do VoIP will need it. Another key that will be offered with 4.0 is for FIPS 197. Only those needing that will need to get the key (i.e. those doing federal business). The license key is already included in BreezeACCESS 4900 versions. All other benefits of 4.0 are part of the free upgrade. Free features part of the upgrade features include: - packets per second to over 40,000 pps (compare to another popular 5GHz product that has a pps limit of 1,800 pps) - a configurable lost beacon threshold for improved performance in high interference environments - automatic channel size selection (CPE side) for auto find of either 10MHz or 20MHz with 5MHz steps - simpler and faster best AU mode - automatic AU TX power shutdown if Ethernet link disconnects triggering CPE to sync with next best AU - low priority traffic starvation prevention when demand is high for priority traffic - support of 802.3 QinQ VLAN for secured transport of users' VLAN inside operator's VLANs - call admission control (dynamic resource allocation protocol - DRAP) with Alvarion gateways used with the VL (and BreezeMAX) CPEs The full benefits of the version 4.0 upgrade can be fully realized with all rev C and rev D hardware versions. Let us know if you have questions. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more >about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or >is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector >so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many >very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been >consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 >calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like >enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. >How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? > >Patrick Leary >AVP Marketing >Alvarion, Inc. >o: 650.314.2628 >c: 760.580.0080 >Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 >> >> >transort > > >>for carriers. >> >> >> >We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us >now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and >therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all >indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless >companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. > > > >>How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an >>important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to >>support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz >>solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger >>Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. >> >> >> >> >> >We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers >running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a >significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize >voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP >to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting >their network ready to support VoIP. > > > >>If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that >>with whatever your current technology permits? >> >> >> >> >> >I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we >bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the >industry. > >-Matt > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU adjustment feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size is something that is critical in many instances. I think you will see more use of larger packets (requiring higher MTU settings) to add layers for security, QoS, packet aggregation, etc. I would consider this to be a entry level feature for any carrier grade wireless platform. Having variable MTU sizes as an option costs you nothing but a few minutes of your programmer's time. Not having it could cost you customers. Regarding WISPs and VOIP. Offering VOIP myself is not a big deal for me yet. It will be soon enough whether I am offering it or not. My customers are starting to demand access to VOIP. They will not give a rat's behind about excuses from me that my network was not optimized for VOIP. I either do it right and set myself apart from other network operators who do not care about QoS for VOIP or I ignore the wishes of my customers. I think I would like to build my network to be VOIP ready. Just my 2 cents. Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: >Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort >for carriers. > We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. >How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an >important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to >support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz >solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger >Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. > > > We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. >If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that >with whatever your current technology permits? > > > I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses (191). * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: >Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since >last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? > >Gino A. Villarini >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Matt Liotta >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred >way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to >use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues >than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory >landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market >segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite >simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood >someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is >the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that >whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is >going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization >that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that >will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as >GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an >extra 24 bytes. > >I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a >radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, >Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support >it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango >sector because of its lack of VLAN support. > >-Matt > >On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an >>issue and I >>have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is >>this a real >>issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the >>product line) >>for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these >>radios support >>QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL >>sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only >>play, >>20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe >>20 on a >>Trango sector. >> >>Patrick >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >>Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to >>tunnel to >>partners, if offering wholesale transport services. >>For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 >>limit, as long >> >>as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the >>reasons >>that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make >>mods to >>allow larger packets? >>I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could >>severally limit >> >>its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients >>likely >>could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for >>their own >> >>network. >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >> >> >> >>>Our setup requires the following: >>> >>>1500 bytes for payload >>>4 bytes for VLANs >>>4
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
3750 ME and 6500 series switchs along with 7300 series routers. We use 2800 series routers for the edges of our network where MPLS is not required. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Cisco switches or routers ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Cisco switches or routers ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: >Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since >last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? > >Gino A. Villarini >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Matt Liotta >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > >QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred >way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to >use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues >than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory >landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market >segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite >simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood >someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is >the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that >whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is >going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization >that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that >will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as >GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an >extra 24 bytes. > >I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a >radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, >Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support >it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango >sector because of its lack of VLAN support. > >-Matt > >On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an >>issue and I >>have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is >>this a real >>issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the >>product line) >>for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these >>radios support >>QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL >>sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only >>play, >>20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe >>20 on a >>Trango sector. >> >>Patrick >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >>Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to >>tunnel to >>partners, if offering wholesale transport services. >>For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 >>limit, as long >> >>as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the >>reasons >>that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make >>mods to >>allow larger packets? >>I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could >>severally limit >> >>its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients >>likely >>could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for >>their own >> >>network. >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >> >> >> >>>Our setup requires the following: >>> >>>1500 bytes for payload >>>4 bytes for VLANs >>>4 bytes for LDP >>>4 bytes for EoMPLS header >>>18 bytes for Ethernet header >>> >>>That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 >>>since >>>that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). >>>Unless 1512 >>>is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be >>>used to >>>backhaul an MPLS network. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> >>> Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has e
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: > As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an > issue and I > have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is > this a real > issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the > product line) > for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these > radios support > QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL > sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only > play, > 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe > 20 on a > Trango sector. > > Patrick > > -Original Message- > From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to > tunnel to > partners, if offering wholesale transport services. > For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 > limit, as long > > as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the > reasons > that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make > mods to > allow larger packets? > I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could > severally limit > > its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients > likely > could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for > their own > > network. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > > >> Our setup requires the following: >> >> 1500 bytes for payload >> 4 bytes for VLANs >> 4 bytes for LDP >> 4 bytes for EoMPLS header >> 18 bytes for Ethernet header >> >> That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 >> since >> that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). >> Unless 1512 >> is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be >> used to >> backhaul an MPLS network. >> >> -Matt >> >> Patrick Leary wrote: >> >>> Matt, >>> >>> I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is >>> 1512. >>> >>> Patrick Leary >>> AVP Marketing >>> Alvarion, Inc. >>> o: 650.314.2628 >>> c: 760.580.0080 >>> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June >>> 15, 2006 >>> 6:33 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >>> >>> Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are >>> looking >>> for an MTU of 1532. >>> >>> -Matt >>> >>> Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from >>> beta >>> testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a >>> link >>> is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in >>
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K > Our setup requires the following: > > 1500 bytes for payload > 4 bytes for VLANs > 4 bytes for LDP > 4 bytes for EoMPLS header > 18 bytes for Ethernet header > > That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since > that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 > is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to > backhaul an MPLS network. > > -Matt > > Patrick Leary wrote: > >>Matt, >> >>I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. >> >>Patrick Leary >>AVP Marketing >>Alvarion, Inc. >>o: 650.314.2628 >>c: 760.580.0080 >>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 >>6:33 AM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K >> >>Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking >>for an MTU of 1532. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >>>Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from >>> >>beta >> >>>testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the >>>Texas >>>panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a >>> >>link >> >>>is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska >>>told >>>me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the >>>most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). >>> >>>The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B >>>series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version >>> >>(antenna >> >>>built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical >>>discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves >>>some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp >>>terrain. >>> >>>We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. >>> >>It >> >>>is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to >>>install >>>backhaul for a very moderate price. >>> >>>Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. >>> >>>Patrick >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malic
RE: [WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look
Tony, Your original post was misleading. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:18 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look Brad - My point with issue was not about the contention it was just a general statement where any one doing or looking at manufacturing WiMax is not doing anything today with 3.65Ghz. I am sure this will change. - Again my comments where about RF, the same power limits are there and no mater what is done with the modulation you can not change physics. Also the features you list below are great but are based on a licensed design to really use the performance. When you try to put two WiMax (today's standard) systems in the same area there are issues that the protocol does not fix and performances is about the same as system on the market today. - You are 100% correct 802.16h is what is going to make this things work in the 5Ghz and 3.65Mhz bands but this is not where we are today and based on the timing of how long it takes from draft to certified standards I would be VERY surprised to see this before late 2007. - FYI for anyone that want to keep up on this: http://wirelessman.org/milestones/dev/milestones_dev.html - Where do you see sub $300 CPEs at 5Ghz in small volume? Which company? Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Larson Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Wimax corrections-The info is out there if you look A few corrections: The issue with 3.650 is the FCC has not decided on "ANY" spec. Wimax was never a 3.650 "issue" and this has been corrected time and time again. The FCC has stated publicly many times that Wimax was never overlooked as a platform. The wifi crowd took the "contention based" excerpt to the extreme and the drum beat continues today. Wimax "will" do more than current 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz OFDM products. Just to name a few -Bits per hertz increased, packets per second through the radio increased, Standardization, 256 OFDM vs 64 OFDM and many more differences. And if you're comparing Wimaxed OFDM solutions to DS based systems there are major differences. Please keep in mind that not all pre-Wimax OFDM systems are comparable. The "current" Wimax protocol is not interference resilient. However, there is a body in the forum working on a solution called 802.16h. Expect to see sub $300 cpe this yearsurprise .it's already here. Brad From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Zcomax has WIMAX? Few things of info: - 3.5Ghz is not not license free in the, 50Mhz at 3.65 is but there are issue with using this with WiMax - WiMax does NOT do any more at 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz then the products on the market today in reference to RF not protocol. - The WiMax protocol has many cool features but are based on a model where there is little or no interface. - I would not expect to see any WiMax product near pricing most WISP pay today to mid 2007 end 2008. I am sure by then there will be sub $100 CPE using the other standards which will have most if not all the features WiMax has in the spec. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate pric
Re: [WISPA] Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc
Marlon, My apologies. I honestly do not even know what this is. Can you give us a 50,000 foot overview of what this is? I guess I missed the call to do something about whatever this is. I have been a bit out of touch with these issues lately. My apologies. Scriv Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Of for God's sake! Only one response and that's not even from a WISPA member Can I at least get a "looks good to me" response if you guys aren't going to take the time to give me some feedback on what to say on this issue? Ken, my comments below. 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: "Ken DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:42 AM Subject: Re: 1st draft Spectrum Sharing Test-bed 06-89.doc Marlon, Comments in-line, just where you'd expect to find them. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: 1 a: We believe that there should be multiple tests run at the same time but in different areas. Possibly on a rotating basis so that each test can be run via different technologies in different environments. We believe that any new technologies should be open to testing on a non interference basis. I would leave this alone - let the FCC decide how this aspect of the test should be run. I can see value (for example) of two competing tests being run in the same area to show how the interference issue can be measured and possibly ignored due to lack of any tangible problem. Part of the problem with this whole idea will be the incombants not wanting to share. We also want to see valid data on what happens to the incombant. This means that we need to limit the possibilities of harmful interference. At least that's my take on it. 1 b: We believe that the biggest challenge is going to be creating a technological and regulatory environment that’s auto correcting. We want to see spectrum fully utilized. However, changing technology would require constantly changing rule sets if it were to be too granular. Too loose and the rules will get abused. We’d like to see a balance that sets the rules in such a way that people can build/use devices that use any open spectrum that they can find. Inefficient radios that don’t keep up with technological advances should be encouraged to leave the market at some point though. Possibly by setting a certification sunset. Certainly all existing devices would be grandfathered, new ones would have to be recertified after x years (3 to 5???) though. I find this to be a dangerous precedent. If full use of spectrum is the goal, it seems that the License Exempt "experiment" has done a pretty good job of pushing the limits of that goal. Yeah, we've done well so far. From my perspective, I would like to see a "loosening" of the rules in specific bands that are easily accessible using off the shelf WiFi equipment. In addition, I want to see the 6GHz band have the six foot antenna rule stricken from the regulation and a reasonable EIRP mandated (like 4 watts plus unlimited antenna gain?) so that we can start to use a "clean" band to deliver communications services in any area that interference would not be a problem is. As a specific example, I would guess (no, I haven't confirmed it) that there is zero usage of the 6GHz band in my area or if there is it is localized for long distance PtP links and anything I would deploy here "on the ground" would not affect these PtP links with their very high gain antennas. Those are all good points but not the point of this nprm as I read it. 2: We think that multiple tests should be allowed to run simultaneously in many markets around the country. Absolutely. 3: Tests should span from fallow to highly used spectrum. We believe that one of the criteria should be equipment availability. There are radios already on the market that will operate in the 2.5 GHz band. This should make modifications to the operating software much easier and less expensive for at least one phase of the tests. We think that all spectrum should be looked at honestly. Important but not mission critical cases should be looked at. ie: Radio navigation should be off limits, but the local plumber’s VHF channels should not. *IF* the plumber detects unusual interference on his band he should be able to contact the testing party and first verify the interference and secondly make them stop causing it. The typical Atheros powered WiFi radio has the ability to access from 2312 to 2732 in the 2 GHz channels and from 4920 to 6100 in the 5 GHz mod
