Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a larger server. Lonnie On 8/23/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the best. Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you remove BGP support from V3? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
In my case, all servers are in boxes in the air, on the roof, or otherwise. BGP needs to be in the regular AP version. - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a larger server. Lonnie On 8/23/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the best. Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you remove BGP support from V3? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Qwest sorry their desire for anti-consumer regulation made public
Flip Flop Flip Flop Guess they are not sure if they are sorry the lawyer got it wrong or maybe they are sorry that they were uncovered... You decide. http://news.com.com/5208-1028-0.html?forumID=1threadID=20499messageID=177273start=-1 Tim Kerns wrote: *Qwest on data retention laws: Oops* http://news.com.com/Qwest+on+data+retention+laws+Oops/2100-1028-6108926.html?part=dhttag=nl.e703 http://news.com.com/Qwest+on+data+retention+laws+Oops/2100-1028-6108926.html?part=dhttag=nl.e703 Looks like someone may be updating their resume. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
Are you actually carrying your traffic, with your own approved public IP assignment to several carriers and they accept and route that traffic to and from the Internet? Any time I requested that it was a very expensive proposition to have and they also only did large blocks of publics. I guess times have changed. We have our network carrying our traffic to several feed points and we do nat at that time. Using policy routing and mesh we deliver to any number of available ADSL lines and T1 connections. Lonnie On 8/24/06, Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my case, all servers are in boxes in the air, on the roof, or otherwise. BGP needs to be in the regular AP version. - Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a larger server. Lonnie On 8/23/06, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the best. Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you remove BGP support from V3? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY? ----- ooops!!!!
I still think we need to keep this discussion going for a bit. I have a question for you guys. Which do you think is better for all concerned. Do you think we should portray a false sense of security and anonymity? Do you think we should tell our customers, Hey do whatever you want online, nobody is tracking anything. Then when a customer trips up on an online resource that is a trap by the feds they get a court order and beat on us with subpoenas and the like until we give them whatever data we might have. I can tell you what I do online and on the telephone. I assume I am being monitored all the time. (No...not in that paranoid they're out to get me sort of way). Why should anyone think otherwise? It is not as if the legal system cannot listen in or watch if they really want to. All it takes is a court to approve a tap. It is not that big a deal to the legal system. I am not advocating that we help the government strip away our civil liberties. If I did not think they were part anti-Christ I would likely join and support the ACLU because our government is chiseling away at our civil liberties one by one, a piece at a time, slowly and methodically and none of us are really doing anything but watching it happen and whining about it occasionally. Just like that boiling frog analogy someone expressed on here recently (I really liked that analogy by the way). What I am saying is it would probably be a better service to our customers if we simply tell them the facts. Let them know that if they do something out of line on the Internet that there is a very good chance they will be tracked and caught. There are in fact legal efforts online setup to trap folks who are doing bad things. They exist and they catch lots of people doing bad things. I cannot help but think that part of the reason for this increase in criminal behavior is born from a false sense of security people have that they can go do things on the Internet that nobody will ever catch them or see them doing. They think they are invisible or somehow that the laws do not apply while they are online. Maybe if we warn our fellow citizens of the false sense of security about anonymity then maybe they will curb some dark repressed desire to go find little girls to chat with or try to setup that date with the hooker or download that bootleg copy of Snakes on a Plane. I do think people need to start using a little more self-control or they will actually bring on more erosion of their civil liberties. If we all work toward a better culture online then maybe the government will have less grounds to erode the open nature of this wonderful medium. This all has very little to do with how we might lobby for our own objectives involving the tracking of online activity but it makes for good debate none the less. Scriv Tim Kerns wrote: *Qwest on data retention laws: Oops* http://news.com.com/Qwest+on+data+retention+laws+Oops/2100-1028-6108926.html?part=dhttag=nl.e703 http://news.com.com/Qwest+on+data+retention+laws+Oops/2100-1028-6108926.html?part=dhttag=nl.e703 Looks like someone may be updating their resume. - Original Message - *From:* Travis Johnson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:25 AM *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WHY? Hi, You have to connect to the internet backbone somewhere (even if in multiple locations, etc.). You would simply need a $500 PC at each connection. Pretty simple. Travis Microserv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Travis, my network has no such central point. There is no point where my traffic passes through or can be mirrored to a single point at a building. In less than a year, it will all be dynamically routed via BGP, through physically diverse locations and providers, and again, traffic from the customers will not pass through any place where logging can be done. Nor have I any location to keep such data secure. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY? Hi, Although I am totally against this, we are already doing this (and keeping a year's worth of history). Keep in mind we move about 110Mbps of traffic average. We setup a linux box (p4/2.8ghz with 1GB of RAM and a 200GB drive) about a year ago and installed IpAudit. This single box is able to keep up with the traffic load and helps us track down customers that are infected, SPAMMING, etc. We simply mirror our main incoming port on our backbone switch to another port, and plug the IpAudit box into that port. Works great. :) Travis Microserv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Why? Because it will severely burden smaller ISP's that lack the network infrastructure to do this. Is WISPA lobbying against this? It will be nearly impossible
Re: [WISPA] WHY?
You want me to hang a $500 PC in a box on a non-penetrating roof mount? Current location has no power, only POE - at 100feet. Next location up is precisely the same... buildingtop with only POE power from inside. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY? Hi, You have to connect to the internet backbone somewhere (even if in multiple locations, etc.). You would simply need a $500 PC at each connection. Pretty simple. Travis Microserv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Travis, my network has no such central point. There is no point where my traffic passes through or can be mirrored to a single point at a building. In less than a year, it will all be dynamically routed via BGP, through physically diverse locations and providers, and again, traffic from the customers will not pass through any place where logging can be done. Nor have I any location to keep such data secure. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY? Hi, Although I am totally against this, we are already doing this (and keeping a year's worth of history). Keep in mind we move about 110Mbps of traffic average. We setup a linux box (p4/2.8ghz with 1GB of RAM and a 200GB drive) about a year ago and installed IpAudit. This single box is able to keep up with the traffic load and helps us track down customers that are infected, SPAMMING, etc. We simply mirror our main incoming port on our backbone switch to another port, and plug the IpAudit box into that port. Works great. :) Travis Microserv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Why? Because it will severely burden smaller ISP's that lack the network infrastructure to do this. Is WISPA lobbying against this? It will be nearly impossible for most of us in the wireless business to do this, without major restructuring, or a huge expense that we can't afford. - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: [WISPA] WHY? http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6108279.html?part=rsstag=6108279subj=news Why would Qwest want ISP's to have to retain this data? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY? ----- ooops!!!!
I've always told my customers that whatever they do on the net is not annonamous. And that they should assume someone is watching and is listening. I've kinda described privacy on the net is like being blindfolded at the local football stadium and thinking nobody is there, but then to find out after you take the blindfold off that the stadium is full and everyone CAN see you. They just might not be looking at you at the moment. You know, we can all think we have a right to privacy, but I think our rights to privacy for whatever reason we might believe we have them is limited. When you step out in the public domain, there is not much privacy that you are entitled to. As time moves on and the sophistication of our society increases we have to adjust our thinking. George Scrivner wrote: I still think we need to keep this discussion going for a bit. I have a question for you guys. Which do you think is better for all concerned. Do you think we should portray a false sense of security and anonymity? Do you think we should tell our customers, Hey do whatever you want online, nobody is tracking anything. Then when a customer trips up on an online resource that is a trap by the feds they get a court order and beat on us with subpoenas and the like until we give them whatever data we might have. I can tell you what I do online and on the telephone. I assume I am being monitored all the time. (No...not in that paranoid they're out to get me sort of way). Why should anyone think otherwise? It is not as if the legal system cannot listen in or watch if they really want to. All it takes is a court to approve a tap. It is not that big a deal to the legal system. I am not advocating that we help the government strip away our civil liberties. If I did not think they were part anti-Christ I would likely join and support the ACLU because our government is chiseling away at our civil liberties one by one, a piece at a time, slowly and methodically and none of us are really doing anything but watching it happen and whining about it occasionally. Just like that boiling frog analogy someone expressed on here recently (I really liked that analogy by the way). What I am saying is it would probably be a better service to our customers if we simply tell them the facts. Let them know that if they do something out of line on the Internet that there is a very good chance they will be tracked and caught. There are in fact legal efforts online setup to trap folks who are doing bad things. They exist and they catch lots of people doing bad things. I cannot help but think that part of the reason for this increase in criminal behavior is born from a false sense of security people have that they can go do things on the Internet that nobody will ever catch them or see them doing. They think they are invisible or somehow that the laws do not apply while they are online. Maybe if we warn our fellow citizens of the false sense of security about anonymity then maybe they will curb some dark repressed desire to go find little girls to chat with or try to setup that date with the hooker or download that bootleg copy of Snakes on a Plane. I do think people need to start using a little more self-control or they will actually bring on more erosion of their civil liberties. If we all work toward a better culture online then maybe the government will have less grounds to erode the open nature of this wonderful medium. This all has very little to do with how we might lobby for our own objectives involving the tracking of online activity but it makes for good debate none the less. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY?
IMHO, this is real simple.. If you give me an IP, in near real-time or for a few months after, I can give you a user name and address, unless it was a free, public access use at one of our hotspots, in which case you are SOL. If it is 6 months ago or longer, if the user is still a customer, I can give you a name and address. If they have terminated service and paid their bill in full, you are again SOL. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything.I do not track where my users go or what they do or who they IM to, or who they email. It is none of my business and I resent the .gov trying to make me an unpaid cop. If the .gov wants this data, they can pay for it... and the equipment and the data storage... and the bandwidth and my time The only thing we track is virus and spam traffic. And that only for defending network integrity. Those logs die if not looked at in 24-48 hours -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Alvarion - Cool ATPC feature
I'm going to save my 4.0 Firmware evaluation results for later, after I'm finished testing. But while working with ED Wyatt this past week, (ps. thanks Ed for the time), It reminded of some of the cool features that had existed in the Firmware (supported on V3 also) One that sticks out is the way that they do Automatic Transmit Power Control. Of course this feature is needed to prevent unnecessary interference including at the Cell Site, by allowing CPE radios to just use the minimum Transmit power required to get a reliable full speed link. Some competitors use ATPC, but it only considers the desired RSSI that is targeted, not necessarilly link quality. Alvarion's method I felt was engenius. It uses Signal to Noise Ratio as the criteria for adjusting the Transmit Power at CPE. This prevents the Power level from staying lower, if the noise level rises after it is installed. It also was very customizable, with 4 filed values that could be changes to fine tune how you specifically wanted the ATPC to work. (for example, considering entended modulation,), and even had an auotmatic override to gain link association, in case a setting was made that would otherwise prevent good link quality or association. Also in the past, when to much noise was hit heavilly, it would reboot (in case it was an AP lockup), but now it can be set not to reboot if preferred. It now can actually send a trap, to notify you when the reboot would have occured, so you realize that a link is having an interference problem. The end result was, the way they did it, translated to a ATPC feature that would be very advantageous to be used, apposed to a feature that would be disabled. ATPC may not be a feature that WISPs want, who's desire is to destroy the airways. But its an important feature for encoraging co-existinance, and for that matter, health of your own cellsite's equipment co-location, and commend Alvarion for their accomplishment in that feature. This feature for other manufacturers may be a factor of which chipsets they use and their ability to measure SNR. The other thing that was pretty cool, was its famous abilty, to have two seperate memory spaces for Firmware to reside. We were able to have V3 on one image and V4 on the other Image, and with a flick of a switch (command) jump between the firmwares, so that I could test the performance at each of the Firmware versions. This drastically sped up comparative testing time. But what it brings up, is that if you try a new firmware in the field, its not a huge time consuming process to switch back, if you need to see if the old was corrects a newly developed process. When you have a few hundred sites, I could see that being an advantage. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY?
Scott, We now receive about one supeona per month for information from federal and state agencies. The last one was a guy in his 30's trying to setup a "meeting" with a 13 year old girl. I was able to provide the information because we log all of that already. It's hard to go back and get traffic info if the offense was 3 weeks prior. (The guy confessed once the sheriff showed up at his house, BTW). Travis Microserv Scott Reed wrote: I don't know that I can even do that much, but I agree, it is not for me to fund data collection for the government. If they want data collected, I can make a switch port available and charge them co-location fees to house a system they provide. As long as there is a law or court order, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, the data collected will get thrown out of many courts anyway. No probably cause to be watching. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:27:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY? IMHO, this is real simple.. If you give me an IP, in near real-time or for a few months after, I can give you a user name and address, unless it was a free, public access use at one of our hotspots, in which case you are SOL. If it is 6 months ago or longer, if the user is still a customer, I can give you a name and address. If they have terminated service and paid their bill in full, you are again SOL. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything. I do not track where my users go or what they do or who they IM to, or who they email. It is none of my business and I resent the .gov trying to make me an unpaid cop. If the .gov wants this data, they can pay for it... and the equipment and the data storage... and the bandwidth and my time The only thing we track is virus and spam traffic. And that only for defending network integrity. Those logs die if not looked at in 24-48 hours -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- __ NOD32 1.1723 (20060824) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY?
I don't know that I can even do that much, but I agree, it is not for me to fund data collection for the government. If they want data collected, I can make a switch port available and charge them co-location fees to house a system they provide. As long as there is a law or court order, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, the data collected will get thrown out of many courts anyway. No probably cause to be watching. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:27:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY? IMHO, this is real simple.. If you give me an IP, in near real-time or for a few months after, I can give you a user name and address, unless it was a free, public access use at one of our hotspots, in which case you are SOL. If it is 6 months ago or longer, if the user is still a customer, I can give you a name and address. If they have terminated service and paid their bill in full, you are again SOL. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything. I do not track where my users go or what they do or who they IM to, or who they email. It is none of my business and I resent the .gov trying to make me an unpaid cop. If the .gov wants this data, they can pay for it... and the equipment and the data storage... and the bandwidth and my time The only thing we track is virus and spam traffic. And that only for defending network integrity. Those logs die if not looked at in 24-48 hours -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- End of Original Message --- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] WHY? ----- ooops!!!!
Mark Koskenmaki wrote: I do not want the legal liability of being responsible for having such logs, keeping such logs, and having to prove such logs are absolutely accurate. That's just that part. Amen to that brother! Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Frequency Question
Who is allowed to use 5700 to 5500 in the US? Thanks George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Frequency Question
The Military only for now. We will be able to under certain conditions if the NTIA would ever release the reference standard for developing testing of DFS and TPC for 5.4 to 5.7 GHz equipment certification. Many hardware manufacturers have equipment ready once a testing standard is released. Scriv George Rogato wrote: Who is allowed to use 5700 to 5500 in the US? Thanks George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Frequency Question
Thanks John So the 5700 to 5500 is part of the 5400 that we are all waiting for? George John Scrivner wrote: The Military only for now. We will be able to under certain conditions if the NTIA would ever release the reference standard for developing testing of DFS and TPC for 5.4 to 5.7 GHz equipment certification. Many hardware manufacturers have equipment ready once a testing standard is released. Scriv George Rogato wrote: Who is allowed to use 5700 to 5500 in the US? Thanks George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
