Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

- Original Message - 
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...


 Well, lets really spice it up thenI'm going to stir the pot in this
 direction for this post

 Alvarion has done a great job of producing a product that does an
 excellent job delivering value to their customers and has several unique
 features that will keep it on a different level above what the open
 source/standard hardware crew will ever be capable of.  They maintain
 strict control over the hardware components and feel it is important to
 keep continuity with their already existing products.  There are some
 valid technical reasons for doing things that way, and some equally
 valid business reasons for having equipment that is non-standard.
 Alvarion is in business TO MAKE MONEY - and they have done an excellent
 job retaining value and delivering a consistently usable product to the
 WISP industry while making money.   This is not a hobby for them.

Nobody here is saying it is.I just think they're a fish out of water
when it comes to how fast the evolution of WISP and technology has become.
BRIDGING a residential network?   What the???


 Mark, you unfortunately fall into the hardware trap of humping your
 radios and spending a heck of a lot of time worrying about having the
 neatest gadget for your wisp.

I do?   When?   I spent a lot of time...  A while back, picking what I'd go
with for a while.   I spend a lot more time sitting down and doing what
ifs and comparing my roadmap to what appears to be the market and t he
consumer.   Far more than I fiddle with goodies.

You are in a rural area and don't have to
 worry about issues of scale.  If you continue to spend all that time
 putting together each radio and trying to micromanage each customer
 connection you will not scale beyond a couple hundred customers.

Yah know, I'm going to spending longer doing paperwork tracking these things
than I will putting them together.   Fire it up, click, upload config file,
save, set the AP for the c lient cpe and vice versa (funny, you gotta do
this with everything ya buy) go hang it.   I've gone from bare parts to full
CPE in 15 minutes.   That's configured for client's speed, put in the
enclosure, and all the settings done.

I wonder how long it takes to configure a VL product for use?Probably
not much less.  Again, I'm going to have more time in doing paperwork
tracking serial numbers and parts and inventory than I will in fiddling
around.

But then, there WILL  be customer support issues just like I have now...
When the dog chews the wire off the side of the house (who'd have thought
the dog would get on top of the AC unit and chew a wire stapled under the
lower edge of the siding ridge???) , or the customer unplugs everyting and
plugs the wrong stuff into the wrong thing (more than once now).And
don't tell me that dirty power has no effect on Trango or VL or whatever.
Of c ourse it does.  Or that the customer has blown his switch...  (again)
due to power surges and doesn't realize why he's offline.These will
happen with any product.   They're just part of the human equation.Yes,
I have had lightning losses.   Yes, I did have a customer than turned her
CPE on and off several times a day (no kidding!) because she thought that it
was dangerous to leave it on and no amount of explaining wouild change her
mind.And then... one day, it didn't come back on.

 Alvarion has put together products that have a steeper initial learning
 curve but are very flexible, very manageable and will scale.  I know of
 one Alvarion operator that is at 18,000 customers - you don't reach that
 level putting your own CPEs together and requiring the high level of
 installation skill to put a StarOS or MT based CPE into service.

What high level of skill is that?   I'd say it takes precisely EQUAL skill.
It doesn't matter if you're putting up the equivalent of a space shuttle or
kite on a string,  it takes about the same amount of time.   The
fiddlybits have always been related to physical issues at the customer
site, not cpe.The time involved in installs has been a vast majority of
OTHER things, never problems with the cpe that weren't my own failure to do
something really simple (like bring the box... duhh).

  You
 might think that Alvarion and others are Late to the Party but you
 have Missed the Boat when it comes to building your core business
 around a scalable, manageable product.

Really?   How the bloody heck do you maintain even a modicum of QC on your
network if you have residential customers putting in thier own router?Or
do I pretend to be Qwest and say if we didn't install it we don't support
it? I'm not even going to pretend I can have the c ustomer touch his
router.   For the few who did install thier own, they've been more
troublesome than 

Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Mark Koskenmaki
Patrick, I hope you understand something... I have no animosity towards
anyone...  But I really do want to light a fire under people.   Too many
companies (even me at times) gets too stuck in the box and we forget to
look beyond.

From our past conversations, you should realize what a large step it is for
me to say I strongly consider your VL product under the Comnet program.
But you have to understand that to do so has certain operational downsides
for me as well. I'm not a mathmatician, but the way I see it, if my
network backbone is 99% reliable, and my cpe is 99% reliable, I'm only 98%
reliable.   I have found that physical site issues have had far more to do
with downtime and difficult installs, and customer issues, than the network
at all.

Generally, the network hums along wtihout intervention or attention.
Customers do not.  They forget passwords, they unplug stuff, they install
home routers and put them on the same channel I'm on,  they DO THESE THINGS.

My issues have, in my unscientific estimation been:

1.  Customer self-inflicted - perhaps about 20% of all things
2.  Errors on my part (yeah, misconfiguring a router or other such bonehead
goofs) - 15%
3.  Downtime due to hardware failures:  10% - this includes power supplies,
UPS,  burned out batteries, etc sudden radio or networking equipment death
that's really unexplained.
4.  Physical failure of customer end equipment:  10%.   Lightning and power
issues.
5.  acts of Nature:  5%.

The rest is just...  stuff happens.   breaker burns out and takes a
circuit offline and I have no power to a remote site.
Bugs got into a pc case and somehow or other managed to short out the ram.
Power supply burned out or otherwise just croaked.  ( 3 times in  months )
Wire near the storage batteries somehow got exposed to acid and just parted
at a random moment.
Some uknown person fired up an extremely strong signal and took down the 5
ghz backhauls, and each time I moved to clear air, so did he.  Then, the
interference stopped mysteriously a couple months ago.   My competitor and I
have been unable to locate this interference, we communicated considerably
on the topic, decided it seemed deliberate, but we never found the source.
BTW, it took down his Trango stuff.
Competitor pulled the CPE apart and managed to mangle putting it back
together, taking the customer offline.



So...  If you have suggestions on how to cut down on the stuff happens,
that would do the most.   Certainly,  improved attention my part would
elimenate 2, and some of 3 and possibly 4,  I take my gambles, it's worked
out.

But if you're going to say that dramatically increased CPE quality or
lifespan would transform my network's reliability...  It won't.  Improve?
Of course.  But no real big issue at the moment.yeah, I want better QOS
for VOIP applications... but will my customers pay $15 more a month so I can
buy them a router and higher end stuff?   Probably not.

So where do you thread the needle? If you had all the neato RF goodies
and enhancements to the MAC, but also included routing and dynamic routing
and DHCP and NAT and so on... Man, that would be one heck of a hard thing to
resist.   There would be no compromise other than dollars, and it's far
eaiser, in my book, to compromise a small amount of dollars than it is
certain fundamental network characteristics.Heck, at the lowest price
you quote, there's no dollar issue to me, just a large hurdle for those
smaller POP's (ap cost and some issues revolving around power consumption -
my God, havn't you guys learned how to use lower power consumption stuff
yet ).

Heck, Trango and Motorola haven't even been considered, due to mostly the
same thing.

Someone asked me what I wanted that nearly 3 years ago when I was getting
ready to put my first stuff up and I made a list.

Someone filled the stuff on that list before you did.  Now down the road
with experience under my  belt the only thing I really wish for that I don't
have is better QOS capability for voip and a little better price. Would
it really kill Alvarion to stop reinventing the wheel and base something on
mass production in the outside world and apply thier skills to a full blown
SOLUTION for residential use?   Of course not.Are they even considering
something with the capabilities of a WAR board cpe?

I have my doubts.Are they stuck in the box?


+++
neofast.net - fast internet for North East Oregon and South East Washington
email me at mark at neofast dot net
541-969-8200
Direct commercial inquiries to purchasing at neofast dot net

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...


 Well that was worth staying up to read! Man, thanks Matt.

 ...and Mark, you might be surprised that I am harder and more pushy on
 our PMs about features WISPs 

Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

And now to stir it in the other direction

If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard 
bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done.  While 
I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the 
special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not 
telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty 
big problems.  I am seriously considering VL for some future 
deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining 
my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it.  The main 
Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of 
having simple installation processes with standard procedures for 
cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple 
routing capabilities.  If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in 
these installation limitations.


Ok, now.RANT MODE ON

I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and 
enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless 
industry but the ISP business in general.  The Telecom Act of '96 has 
been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current 
administration into a toothless tiger.  Unlicensed wireless gear for 
broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were 
created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of 
reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum.  Cell phone 
company valuations are based in large part on the value of their 
spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions 
to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is 
kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the 
thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related.


Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily 
stacked against us.


So when I hear people saying things like the only thing that can take 
out Canopy is other Canopy and that it hurts the entire industry to use 
gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the 
technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the paperwork 
test) - I laugh quietly and to myself.  Here's why...


Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian 
survivor of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly.  If it is 
unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally.  Yes, 
Canopy too.  It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it 
doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a 
nuclear bomb.   So you Motorola guys can get off your high horse, when 
the bomb goes off you are just as cooked as the guy using wifi based 
gear.  Licensed guys aren't exactly immune either.  WiMax isn't designed 
to handle interference well, so I would imagine that those neat 
self-install WiMax CPE radios have a lovely time when the neighbor kid 
turns on his hacked Linksys router running in 2.5ghz and the noise floor 
goes through the roof.


There are lots of folks using products that aren't legal and they are 
going to get away with it because the law is unenforcable.  Yes, there 
are examples of people who will get fined, and probably a few 
high-profile cases to scare the rest.  But there are millions of 
software definable chipsets out there that can be modified to do all 
kinds of crazy things in both unlicensed AND licensed spectrum.  The cat 
is out of the bag, and our current legislative structure has no hope of 
getting it back in.  Running an omni at 40db in 2.4ghz is about as 
serious an infraction as downloading unlicensed music from Bit 
Torrent, and both have an equal probability of being prosecuted.


DISCLAIMER:  All of the systems that I have deployed now have certs for 
the radio/amp/antenna combinations and run at or below the allowed power 
for the band.  Just because I don't like the system doesn't mean that 
I'm going to start the revolution and flaunt the rules.


The saddest thing to me is seeing the faces at ISPCON and thinking about 
how many more used to be around a few years ago.  I look at guys like 
Travis Johnson, John Scrivner or Rick Harnish and wonder about the other 
ten guys that used to be there.  They are probably  insurance salesmen 
or working in a used car lot somewhere after their ISP either folded up 
or was gobbled up by a big operator when it was clear that things were 
not sustainable.  When I think about how close I was to that same fate, 
I start to wonder what good did the legal framework do for the 
independent ISP?  UNE and reciprocal comp are gone - wholesale rates for 
DSL are higher than the retail rates that the ILEC charge and now the 
modem pool providers are starting to feel the heat.  We've got 
unlicensed wireless, and it was so worthless that it is called the junk 
band.   The real tragedy is the death of so many ISPs, and the loss of 
innovation with it.


RE: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)

2007-01-06 Thread Mac Dearman


 I am under the notion that Pacific Wireless/Cush Craft is due some
recognition, serious back patting and an all around ata boy - good job.

Some of us say Trango - some say Alvarion, some say StarOS and some of us
say MikroTik, but I think 90% of us all say PACWIRELESS! We dressed out
another water tower yesterday with the usual stuff for us which consists of
4 - 95* Hpol PacWireless sectors, 1 - 29dbi PacWireless 5.x grid, 1 -
PacWireless 32db dish w/radome and a PacWireless 12dbi w/3* electric down
tilt Omni for backup as well as 7 RB532A enclosed in (Naturally) 7
PacWireless hinged enclosures with (yes) 7 PacWireless lightening arrestors.

   When I pulled out my camera to document the install - - I realized all my
towers are dressed with GOBS of PacWireless antennas. On my 1.5 hour drive
home from that tower I started thinking how many other manufacturers'
antennas do I have installed on my network? Not counting the Trango dual
polarized there were a total of two other antennas that were not
PacWireless. 

My point is this - I buy PacWireless every time without ever giving quality
a thought as I have so much experience with Pacific Wireless Products in the
past that its never been a question. I have completely taken Pacific
Wireless for granted as I have never had an antenna bought from them that
gave me trouble. That is saying a lot in my book as I have to look and think
when ordering radios, SBC's, CPE...ETC. 

Ben - My hat is off to you and your Company! You have made it into my
Antenna HALL OF FAME and I am a true Pacific Wireless fan. Thanks for the
great products and keep up the good work. You have enabled so many of us to
build a fine network, offer multiple services over our infrastructure and
built in reliability as well as affordability! We will be looking at you to
keep up with whatever is new and fang dangled for the industry in the
future.

Thanks for ALL THAT DONATED HURRICANE GEAR TOO!!! It is ALL still up and
running today serving many on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

THANKS!!


Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Rayville, La.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief)
www.mac-tel.us  (VoIP sales)
318.728.8600
318.728.9600
318.303.4182 



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Peter R.

Matt and Mark (and others),

This is a general rant about posts from the last few weeks.

When I read the posts about who is better and what is missing, it 
reminds me of a kid's christmas wish list.
There is no perfect CPE. Everyone has their favorite. And much like 
politics and religion you aren't going to persuade someone to change.


You have to ask yourself:  Is Good Enough, good enough to base your 
business on?


If it won't scale or has a limit, is that limit good enough for your 
market? Chances are it is because more than two-thirds the ISPs I have 
dealt with have less than 300 BB clients. Less than 300. So their 
network is Good Enough.


(Why 300 is a whole other rant -- sales, marketing, humping the boxes 
instead of the prospects).


There is often talk of valuations - and like Mark said - the customer is 
the asset. That being said: No one is buying your network or your 
Potential. They are paying for your customer list and contracts.


Your fortunes will probably not be made on just connectivity. You need 
to start moving up the layer stack and get closer to Layer 7 - the 
application. With the Mega-Mergers now complete, your customer base is 
now the target. The price point is $10 - and they are coming. You need 
find a way to capture your customers like banks do with Bill Pay.


I often speak with cable operators who are getting their lunch eaten by 
DBS, because to upgrade their current network is millions - even for 
6000 homes passed. So the shift is coming. The big are eating the small 
in ever segment on the market.


People will want/need bigger pipes - and probably won't care where it 
comes from. But security, data protection, pc support, help, and 
knowledge is yours to sell.


Sorry for the rambling.

- Peter


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Solar power

2007-01-06 Thread Russ Kreigh
Mark -

What are you wanting to power, load-wise?

Thanks,

Russ Kreigh
Network Engineer
OnlyInternet.Net


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power

David... Any news on this potential sub-$1k solar system?

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
- Original Message - 
From: David Weddell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Solar power


 We are testing a solar solution right now and will get back with you on 
 the
 results. It will be sub $1,000 if the testing goes well. I will report it 
 to
 the list when we get the full results.

 Regards,
 David Weddell
 Director of Sales

 260 827 2551 Office
 800 363 4881  Ext 2551
 260 273 7547 Cell

 www.onlyinternet.net
 www.oibw.net

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jason Hensley
 Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:41 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power

 I appreciate the info, but for what I need, $5000 isn't even close to 
 being
 worth it.  This is for ONE AP (Deliberant 7000).  I was thinking if I 
 could
 stay in the $500 range it might be OK, but anything more than that would 
 not

 make sense for me in THIS case.  In other instances it might, but not this
 one.

 Thanks for this though.  I'll keep it in case I run into an instance where

 I

 do need something like this.  Great info!


 - Original Message - 
 From: Alan Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 7:58 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Solar power


I have some - the typical shopping list is like this:

 Kyocera solar panels - 4 kc130-k, at approx. 680.00 each - gives me 14
 volts at 14 amps on a good day (to charge batteries)
 Mounting hardware - varies 100-200
 wiring harnesses between panels - 50.00
 wiring harness to charge controller (below) 20
 Trojan l16H batteries - 2 to 4, at 270 each (+/-)
 wiring interconnects -  Series to 12 volts, parallel from there 30.00
 fuses and cutoff switch between batteries and everything else 40.00
 fuses and cutoff switch between panels and everything else 40.00
 charge controller - I have used shell 20's (120.00 with enclosure)
 successfully, though they are a bit low rated for the solar load - I have
 gone to Xantrex charge controllers with cute lights and battery
 temperature sensors (twice as much - 245 plus 29)
 voltage regulator (90.00) for 12 v to 18 v boost (range 6 v to 24 v)
 timer   50.00 (sometimes I set them up to be off from 1 am to 5 am, to
 save power during the gray, foggy period coming up)(December 1 to 
 February

 1) - that's why 4 batteries, too. It is better to add batteries than
 panels for the most part (see Kyocera panels above) and auto tilting
 mounts don't give us that much advantage up here above 45degrees north -
 just a few percent. In the southern lands, I'd give them a try.
 Enclosure for the stuff - varies, depending on whether I find a sweet box
 or build a little hut. ($ whatever)
 Grounding stuff. - rods, #2 copper wire, wire lugs, clamps. 100.00

 About 5000.00 for a decent power setup for me. I am using Tranzeo radios,
 at 18 volts. Very Christmas-like, with the flickering lights on top of 
 the

 tower...

 I have a generator handy for charging on really bad stretches - a Honda
 2000i, for about 900.00, with a SERIOUS cable lock.

 And if the lousy communists/free spending democrats/stinking republican
 fascists/religious true believing kooks/screwed up militarists/nasty bird
 flu ridden ducks/global frying eco-terrorists/flaming radical 
 libertarians

 make everything bad, I can harvest my stuff to power my house (WOO HOO!!)
 H maybe I should go take a look. I Am Armed. And carry sharp
 Multimeter probes.

 And, it's fun - bragging rights, ya know.

 I'll send you drawings if you want (on my time schedule - I am in the
 middle of an assembly right now  :} )
 There are several good supply houses for the parts, and most of them are
 Very Helpful. I'd tell you who I use, but that would be Bad Form.

 www.bigdam.net


 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date: 11/17/2006


 -- 
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.409 

RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Matt,

VL CPE ship with the cable, pre-terminated. As for management, you can use 
telnet or SNMP with both standard and proprietary MIBs. We do not permit 
Web-based for security reasons and you can restrict management access to 
specific IP addresses and/or directions (from the Ethernet side or the wireless 
side). You can also auto configure using an FTP or TFTP file (for batch, 
network wide, or specific units).

As for the router feature thing, I believe most of that arises from people's 
experience with 802.11b and the belief that since we don't have routing than 
everyone must be able to see everyone on an Alvarion network. That is not the 
case for a number of reasons. One such reason is our support of Ethernet 
Broadcast Filtering:

The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu enables defining the layer 2 (Ethernet) 
broadcast and multicast filtering capabilities for the selected SU. Filtering 
the Ethernet broadcasts enhances the security of the system and saves bandwidth 
on the wireless medium by blocking protocols that are typically used in the 
customer's LAN but are not relevant for other customers, such as NetBios, which 
is used by the Microsoft Network Neighborhood. Enabling this feature blocks 
Ethernet broadcasts and multicasts by setting the I/G bit at the destination 
address to 1. This feature should not be enabled when there is a router behind 
the SU.
The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu includes the following parameters:
„ Filter Options
„ DHCP Broadcast Override Filter
„ PPPoE Broadcast Override Filter
„ ARP Broadcast Override Filter 

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - 
Lists
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 2:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

And now to stir it in the other direction

If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard 
bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done.  While 
I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the 
special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not 
telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty 
big problems.  I am seriously considering VL for some future 
deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining 
my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it.  The main 
Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of 
having simple installation processes with standard procedures for 
cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple 
routing capabilities.  If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in 
these installation limitations.

Ok, now.RANT MODE ON

I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and 
enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless 
industry but the ISP business in general.  The Telecom Act of '96 has 
been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current 
administration into a toothless tiger.  Unlicensed wireless gear for 
broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were 
created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of 
reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum.  Cell phone 
company valuations are based in large part on the value of their 
spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions 
to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is 
kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the 
thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related.

Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily 
stacked against us.

So when I hear people saying things like the only thing that can take 
out Canopy is other Canopy and that it hurts the entire industry to use 
gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the 
technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the paperwork 
test) - I laugh quietly and to myself.  Here's why...

Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian 
survivor of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly.  If it is 
unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally.  Yes, 
Canopy too.  It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it 
doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a 
nuclear bomb.   So you Motorola guys can get off your high horse, when 
the bomb goes off you are just as cooked as the guy using wifi based 
gear.  Licensed guys aren't exactly immune either.  WiMax isn't designed 
to handle interference well, so I would imagine that those neat 
self-install WiMax CPE radios have a lovely time when the neighbor kid 
turns on his hacked Linksys router running in 2.5ghz and the 

Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)

2007-01-06 Thread Travis Johnson

Hi,

I would have to agree. PacWireless has done a great job with their 
antenna products over the past 5 years. We have never had a bad 
antenna out of the box, and they have always worked as advertised, and 
they are affordable.


However, they are not perfect. Their 5.3ghz 10dbi omni had problems 6 
months ago by not being properly grounded inside the antenna... causing 
wireless cards to blow with the slightest amount of static in the air.


Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It 
provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. We started replacing 
many of our problem locations with these injectors... however, when we 
replaced the one farthest from our office (of course), it blew up the 
radio. We then tested the unit and found it was putting out 50+VDC 
rather than 24V. The issue was my tech did not have a spare radio with 
him, and it required a 2.5 hour drive each way, with a bucket truck, up 
the backside of the steepest ski hill in America, to replace the radio. 
Ben took care of us, and made it right, but there was a real problem 
with those original injectors.


We will continue to use them for almost all of our antenna needs. They 
have great customer service and a great product.


Travis
Microserv

P.S. Ski hill info: www.snowking.com

Mac Dearman wrote:

 I am under the notion that Pacific Wireless/Cush Craft is due some
recognition, serious back patting and an all around ata boy - good job.

Some of us say Trango - some say Alvarion, some say StarOS and some of us
say MikroTik, but I think 90% of us all say PACWIRELESS! We dressed out
another water tower yesterday with the usual stuff for us which consists of
4 - 95* Hpol PacWireless sectors, 1 - 29dbi PacWireless 5.x grid, 1 -
PacWireless 32db dish w/radome and a PacWireless 12dbi w/3* electric down
tilt Omni for backup as well as 7 RB532A enclosed in (Naturally) 7
PacWireless hinged enclosures with (yes) 7 PacWireless lightening arrestors.

   When I pulled out my camera to document the install - - I realized all my
towers are dressed with GOBS of PacWireless antennas. On my 1.5 hour drive
home from that tower I started thinking how many other manufacturers'
antennas do I have installed on my network? Not counting the Trango dual
polarized there were a total of two other antennas that were not
PacWireless. 


My point is this - I buy PacWireless every time without ever giving quality
a thought as I have so much experience with Pacific Wireless Products in the
past that its never been a question. I have completely taken Pacific
Wireless for granted as I have never had an antenna bought from them that
gave me trouble. That is saying a lot in my book as I have to look and think
when ordering radios, SBC's, CPE...ETC. 


Ben - My hat is off to you and your Company! You have made it into my
Antenna HALL OF FAME and I am a true Pacific Wireless fan. Thanks for the
great products and keep up the good work. You have enabled so many of us to
build a fine network, offer multiple services over our infrastructure and
built in reliability as well as affordability! We will be looking at you to
keep up with whatever is new and fang dangled for the industry in the
future.

Thanks for ALL THAT DONATED HURRICANE GEAR TOO!!! It is ALL still up and
running today serving many on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

THANKS!!


Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Rayville, La.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief)
www.mac-tel.us  (VoIP sales)
318.728.8600
318.728.9600
318.303.4182 




  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)

2007-01-06 Thread George Rogato



Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,



Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It 
provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. 


Got a url for these?

George


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)

2007-01-06 Thread Mac Dearman
I failed to mention that all 7 of my radios were powered by PACWIRELESS
POE48i POE power supplies!! :-)


George - here is the URL - - scroll to the bottom of that page and choose
24v   http://pacwireless.com/products/POE.shtml


Mac 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)



Travis Johnson wrote:
 Hi,
 

 Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It 
 provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. 

Got a url for these?

George


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

2007-01-06 Thread Brad Belton
Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this.  In another
post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted.  Don't see
how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection.

So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry
wiring codes?  

Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add.  Is
there any update as to when that will be available?

Best,

Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been
told. 

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Patrick,

That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, brains, 
behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way.
I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and 
needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, 
probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable 
with the same pinout.
I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the 
Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this.
The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but 
for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon.
What is the cable limit for  Alvarion's CAT5 connection?

Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of 
standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af?  :-)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL


So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B

(or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ 
an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range 
due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are 
able to maintain the long distance.

So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an 
actual reason.

Regards,

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]









This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(42).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.





-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

2007-01-06 Thread Patrick Leary
No further news on either front. I do what I can to push, but things like the 
pinout will never be high on the list since A) they claim to have a good 
reason, and B) in the rankings of where it is on an operator's decision list, 
it is somewhere between the bottom and the footnotes of the list.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:12 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this.  In another
post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted.  Don't see
how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection.

So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry
wiring codes?  

Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add.  Is
there any update as to when that will be available?

Best,

Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been
told. 

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Patrick,

That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, brains, 
behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way.
I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and 
needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, 
probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable 
with the same pinout.
I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the 
Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this.
The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but 
for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon.
What is the cable limit for  Alvarion's CAT5 connection?

Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of 
standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af?  :-)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL


So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B

(or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ 
an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range 
due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are 
able to maintain the long distance.

So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an 
actual reason.

Regards,

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]









This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(42).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious 

Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)

2007-01-06 Thread George Rogato

Very nice.

I've been wanting an all in one power supply poe for a while now, just 
to keep things tidy.


Wonder if it will work with a non 802.af device and just give me 24v and 
ethernet


George


Mac Dearman wrote:

I failed to mention that all 7 of my radios were powered by PACWIRELESS
POE48i POE power supplies!! :-)


George - here is the URL - - scroll to the bottom of that page and choose
24v   http://pacwireless.com/products/POE.shtml


Mac 





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Call me a PacMan (PacWireless)



Travis Johnson wrote:

Hi,



Last, they started making a 24V PoE injector for Trango products. It 
provided grounding by use of a 3 prong power cable. 


Got a url for these?

George




--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

2007-01-06 Thread George Rogato
Well your choice of 75' was a good one. In the past when I used Smart 
Bridges or Tranzeo, the 50' was sometimes a few feet too short.


George

Patrick Leary wrote:

No further news on either front. I do what I can to push, but things like the 
pinout will never be high on the list since A) they claim to have a good 
reason, and B) in the rankings of where it is on an operator's decision list, 
it is somewhere between the bottom and the footnotes of the list.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:12 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL

Ahh ok, neither do I or the people I've spoken with about this.  In another
post I illustrated the Alvarion VL pin out is simply inverted.  Don't see
how that could make any difference in cross talk rejection.

So, can we expect Alvarion will at some point begin to adhere to industry
wiring codes?  


Several weeks ago you agreed a RSSI reading would be a good item to add.  Is
there any update as to when that will be available?

Best,

Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Frankly I'm not sure I actually buy the reason, but that's what I've been
told. 


Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brad B,I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS
VL

Patrick,

That is good to know, that there was actually technical merit, brains, 
behind the decission to do it Alvarion's way.
I think whats more important from this is that anyone installing VL, and 
needing to extend the cable longer than the cable included with the unit, 
probably then also needs to wire the new longer cable or extenstion cable 
with the same pinout.
I bet many had attempted to use a 568B extension with a coupler to the 
Alvarion cable, if they were not aware of this.
The cable length that comes with it is probably fine for Residential, but 
for MTU's 150-300ft is not uncommon.

What is the cable limit for  Alvarion's CAT5 connection?

Now to give you a hard time Why does the Alvarion use 56V instead of 
standard 48V, 24V, or 802.11af?  :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Brad B, I got your answer on the pinout for BreezeACCESS VL


So Brad, I finally have the answer as to why we do not use the standard 568B

(or 568A for that matter) pinot. We can't. The VL PoE pushes 55 volts and ½ 
an amp up the cat 5 cable. If the standard pinout is used the cable range 
due to cross talk can't make it much past 30 feet. With this pinout we are 
able to maintain the long distance.


So, you may not like it, but at least I've finally been able to give an 
actual reason.


Regards,

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]









This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.







--
George Rogato

Welcome to WISPA

www.wispa.org

http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread RickG

Happy New Year!

Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, 
D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health
check feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?

-RickG
Palm Beach Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html 
CHUCK

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers


Happy New Year!

Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, 
D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health check
feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?

-RickG
Palm Beach Broadband
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread David E. Smith

RickG wrote:


Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, 
D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health
check feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?


Are you just looking for redundancy (i.e. automatic failover so if one 
ISP or connection dies, you'll more-or-less transparently switch to the 
second one), or for bonding or load balancing (i.e. double your 
bandwidth by using both connections at once)?


Either way, building a system with Mikrotik's RouterOS software is 
probably the answer you're looking for, or at least an acceptable 
answer. Automatic failover is so easy, even I was able to figure it out; 
the other fancy stuff you'd have to read up a bit, but it's quite possible.


Heck, the new(ish) RouterBoard 150 hardware comes with the software, and 
the board itself can be found for around $70. Add in a power supply and 
a case of some sort, and you've got a nice complete setup for around 
$100. (I'm assuming you need JUST routing here; if you want this to be a 
wireless client as well, you'd need a slightly more expensive piece of kit.)


David Smith
MVN.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] OT: HD broadcast is TV heaven!..and good for WISPs (your triple play?)

2007-01-06 Thread Patrick Leary
Speaking of RF and the TV bands conversion to digital (and the relevance
to WISPs is at the end of this post)...

I for some reason thought the transition to digital was far off.
Actually, I've learned most all metro areas now have full digital
broadcast availability. And like may, I mostly grew up in an era where
one simply had some pay TV service -- off air stuff was barely tolerable
quality and there were only three networks and maybe one local UHF
independent that looked like snow.

But when I moved up here to the greater San Fran area in early 2005 (I'm
actually in Mountain View 10 miles north of San Jose, 30 miles south of
San Francisco) I decided to look into alternatives to cable or satellite
for my TV content. I figured I am more into movies than all the stuff on
cable. I had also had DirecTV, paying extra for the little HD content
that was to be had. It turned out that DirecTV did not have all the
agreements in place so I could not get all network HD content, so
basically the HD availability on satellite was a sham deal and I was
paying a lot.

Anyway, I discovered the www.antennaweb.org Web site where you can plug
in your address and see exactly what HD channels will be available, what
antenna you'll need and the exact azimuth you need to orient the
antenna. I already had an HD tuner built in to my TV. One half a day and
a $39 dollar indoor antenna later I was watching about 30 free channels
and getting all the broadcast HD content. And that's with the tower just
over 30 miles away. I cancelled my pay-for-content service (saving about
$85 a month) and never looked back.

Today, I watch it on a Pioneer flat panel plasma and the clarity is
beyond incredible -- better than any of the HD I experienced via
satellite. Every sports game is now seen in blistering HD. Almost every
show after 8PM is in HD. All this I never got on satellite even though I
paid extra. From 30 miles away I get ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, KRON
channels (local super station independent), two 24 hour weather
channels, 5 PBS channels (including PBS Kids for my girls), PAX, a
shopping channel (who cares, but I get it), several Spanish channels,
several Asian channels, and few more independents, all free. I don't
miss cable channels one bit.

Even if you are not in a major metro, hit the www.antennaweb.org site
and see what's available in your area. You might be surprised. And if
you do have it, I bet you'll cancel that expensive TV contract. 

SO WHAT'S THE POINT?...

This is all big news really, because if the story gets out, droves will
be cancelling their cable and satellite contracts. Cale ops should be
scared and satellite must be terrified. Content is the main reason to
have cable and the only reason to have satellite in the first place. And
if all cable has left to bundle that customers care about is Internet
and VoIP, then WISPs can be on a level field as cable, and definitely in
better position than satellite.

SO WISPs, spread the word locally. If the broadcast is available, drive
people to it -- maybe even offer free indoor HD antennas (these can be
had for $25) with your WISP Internet service. Present it along with
VoIP, hook up their local off-air HD when you roll the truck to install
the broadband service and you can market it like triple play.

The additional good news is that the old analog channels are clearing up
and will go UL before too long.



Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]







This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer 
viruses.




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Mikrotik Firewall

2007-01-06 Thread Scott Reed
I may be replacing my SonicWall 2040 with an MT for firewall functions.  
I can easily port all of the rules I have created.  But how do I get MT 
to block things like Port Scans, Syn/Fin packets, etc.?


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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] churn, double play and why WLP is key - I finally understand it

2007-01-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,


I'm talking about ALL
the CPE on a sector being able to send its que'd voice out before any
CPE can release data into the sector?


Thats pretty cool. But I'd be interested in learning more on how that 
protocol method interacts with bandwidth allocation per subscriber.


This is the problem that I see from the provider point of view. They have 
two profiles of subscribers, the ones that use their bandwdith, and the ones 
that don't.  The ones that don't can be oversubscribed heavilly, therefore 
can be sold to at a much lower cost to compete agaisnt commodity cable and 
DSL competitors. The ones that do, monompolize the network, and need to be 
sold to at a higher price, often designated at a business class CIR type 
service, or however else the ISP tends to market the hgiher QOS guarantee 
service.  When the ISP qualifies the prospect appropriately in advance 
correctly, everyone wins. The ISP gets paid, The High QOS client gets the 
priority he needs, and the low cost client does not get starved of 
broadband. The problem occurs when the ISP does not qualify the prospect 
appropriately. We've learned that every client starts their conversation 
out, I barely use bandwidth. I just need a very low cost service like ADSL 
for $49. I'm just doing VOIP, basic Internet use, and creating a VPN between 
my offices for a central file server. Maybe some occassional video 
conferencing. But nothing demanding.  Or they lie, and say they have one 
computer just doing limited internet browsing, and you learn they are 
hosting about 20 web servers and a search engine, or a Bulk Email service. 
Or if I make it relevent to this thread, they end up putting 20-30 VOIP 
phones on the service, that they say is just a limited web browsing service. 
The truth is Managed VOIP is the big bnadwdith hog today.  So globally 
Giving VOIP users first priority over all other traffic could be a big flaw. 
It would allow the one that misrepresented their need to chew up all the 
good honest customer's bandwdith. Meaning if VOIP had first priority above 
all data traffic, the Client paying $49 a month and inappropriately putting 
30 VOIP calls on the service, would have better service than the other 20 
customers paying $200/month for data services that bought the appropriate 
bandwidth for their need.  So their is a catch 22 on Prioritizing VOIP above 
all.


So the question is... Does Alvarion do anything smart about this, to deliver 
a fair amount of bandwidth to ALL subs, when prioritizing VOIP?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally 
understand it



I don't think so Gino, but I'm open to be proven wrong. Tell me who else
can actually prioritize over the air sector wide. I'm talking about not
just pushing out the voice first on any given CPE, I'm talking about ALL
the CPE on a sector being able to send its que'd voice out before any
CPE can release data into the sector?

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:19 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally
understand it

Patrick, not to rain on you parade but you guys area actually 2nd on
this RF
prioritization feature

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] churn,double play and why WLP is key - I finally
understand
it

...So I'm here at our annual national meeting and our project manager is
explaining the Wireless Link Prioritization feature available for
BreezeACCESS VL. Frankly, it has always seemed esoteric to those of us
non-technical types, but now I got and it is simple enough.

First, I learned the statistical improvement in churn when a provider
has double play VoIP + data customers. We have had a few CLECs report to
us that with a single play model their churn is about 9%. Adding double
play takes it down to close to 1%. This is critical to the business
model because they said a 10% reduction in churn translates into about a
20% improvement in NPV per subscriber. That's obviously huge. So what's
the WLP feature available in BreezeACCESS VL have to do with any of
this?

BreezeACCESS VL can already do QoS priority tagging of packets per CPE
using layer 2 (802.11p), layer 3 (IP TOS, DSCP) or layer 4 (TCP/UDP port
ranges common with Cisco, for example). That's good and already better
than 

Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

2007-01-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
If its VL is 56 Volts, I'm wondering if Alvarion will work with all those 
left over Metrocom/Richochet 56V Power plants?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...



Matt,

VL CPE ship with the cable, pre-terminated. As for management, you can use 
telnet or SNMP with both standard and proprietary MIBs. We do not permit 
Web-based for security reasons and you can restrict management access to 
specific IP addresses and/or directions (from the Ethernet side or the 
wireless side). You can also auto configure using an FTP or TFTP file (for 
batch, network wide, or specific units).


As for the router feature thing, I believe most of that arises from 
people's experience with 802.11b and the belief that since we don't have 
routing than everyone must be able to see everyone on an Alvarion network. 
That is not the case for a number of reasons. One such reason is our 
support of Ethernet Broadcast Filtering:


The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu enables defining the layer 2 
(Ethernet) broadcast and multicast filtering capabilities for the selected 
SU. Filtering the Ethernet broadcasts enhances the security of the system 
and saves bandwidth on the wireless medium by blocking protocols that are 
typically used in the customer's LAN but are not relevant for other 
customers, such as NetBios, which is used by the Microsoft Network 
Neighborhood. Enabling this feature blocks Ethernet broadcasts and 
multicasts by setting the I/G bit at the destination address to 1. This 
feature should not be enabled when there is a router behind the SU.

The Ethernet Broadcast Filtering menu includes the following parameters:
„ Filter Options
„ DHCP Broadcast Override Filter
„ PPPoE Broadcast Override Filter
„ ARP Broadcast Override Filter

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists

Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 2:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Well, it was time to stir the pot for the new year...

And now to stir it in the other direction

If Alvarion is serious about making the VL platform their new standard
bearer for residential, there is a little bit of work to be done.  While
I understand the need for non-standard items at times, things like the
special ethernet cable, non-standard management interface (snmp, not
telnet or web based) and lack of simple routing capability are pretty
big problems.  I am seriously considering VL for some future
deployments, but I will have to invest a fair amount of time retraining
my techs and installers on how to properly deal with it.  The main
Alvarion competitors (Motorola, Trango, Tranzeo) do a pretty good job of
having simple installation processes with standard procedures for
cabling, web interfaces to change settings in the field and some simple
routing capabilities.  If there is a scalability issue with VL, it is in
these installation limitations.

Ok, now.RANT MODE ON

I have a really hard time having a lot of respect for the legal and
enforcement framework surrounding not just the broadband wireless
industry but the ISP business in general.  The Telecom Act of '96 has
been completely gutted by lawyers, lobbyists and the current
administration into a toothless tiger.  Unlicensed wireless gear for
broadband only exists because of a loophole - when the bands were
created it was not thought to be feasible to deliver any kind of
reliable connection in noisy, interference prone spectrum.  Cell phone
company valuations are based in large part on the value of their
spectrum holdings, and the government is dependent on spectrum auctions
to help fund other activities, so the idea of unlicensed spectrum is
kryptonite for big businesses and many in government that shudder at the
thought of not having complete control over all things telecom related.

Simply put, we aren't supposed to exist, and the system is heavily
stacked against us.

So when I hear people saying things like the only thing that can take
out Canopy is other Canopy and that it hurts the entire industry to use
gear that may or may not be entirely legal (even if it fulfills the
technical requirements of legality but hasn't passed the paperwork
test) - I laugh quietly and to myself.  Here's why...

Thinking that one kind of unlicensed is going to be the Darwinian
survivor of the unlicensed spectrum wars is also folly.  If it is
unlicensed, it can be taken out - and it can be taken out legally.  Yes,
Canopy too.  It takes special resources to build a nuclear bomb, but it
doesn't take much to build the unlicensed spectrum equivalent of a
nuclear bomb.   So 

[WISPA] SSH DOS Killing Linux

2007-01-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
We recently had a really nasty DOS attack that took down a large part of our 
network across several cell sites, from the infected client all the way to 
the Internet transit.
Take note that we identified the problem quickly and cured it quickly. 
But This is the first time that this has occured in 5 years, as we have 
a good number of smart design characteristics that have limited the effects 
of most viruses on our network.  We stopped the attack, by blocking SSH to 
the infected sub.  The average amount of traffic crossing the entire network 
path from the client to the Internet was about 500 kbps on average.  (This 
was a  20 mbps wireless link, and a 100mbps fiber trnasport link to the 
transit.). The two routers were a P4 2Ghz, and a Dual XEON 2.2Ghz w/ 
10,000rpm SCSI3.  The damage was that the CPU was nailed on both routers to 
about 99.9% using TOP to monitor stats.  We varified that successful SSH 
sessions were not made directly to the protected routers themselves.   Take 
note that the wireless links were barely effected, it was the router 2 hops 
away (Dual XEON) that got over loaded the most.  Our routers have been 
tested to pass over 2 gbps of throughput easilly.  And have been load tested 
to survive very small packets and high PPS adequately. The infected sub was 
bandwidth managed with HTB to 256k cir, 1 mbps mir, but not anything for 
PPS.  So I'm looking for reasons that the CPU got overloaded.  My theory is 
that the DOS attack resulted in a large number of disk writes, ( maybe 
logging?) causing the CPU saturation.  I've had a hard time locating the 
cause. And have not discovered which virus yet, although I should have more 
info soon from my clients.


So my question

What needs to be done on a Linux machine to harden it, to protect against 
CPU oversaturation, during DOS attacks?


What should and shouldn't be logged? Connection Tracking? Firewall logging? 
Traffic stats?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] SSH DOS Killing Linux

2007-01-06 Thread W.D.McKinney
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:26:39 -0900
Subject:
[WISPA] SSH DOS Killing Linux


 We recently had a really nasty DOS attack that took down a large part of our
 
 network across several cell sites, from the infected client all the way to 
 the Internet transit.
 Take note that we identified the problem quickly and cured it quickly. 
 But This is the first time that this has occured in 5 years, as we have 
 a good number of smart design characteristics that have limited the effects 
 of most viruses on our network.  We stopped the attack, by blocking SSH to 
 the infected sub.  The average amount of traffic crossing the entire network
 
 path from the client to the Internet was about 500 kbps on average.  (This 
 was a  20 mbps wireless link, and a 100mbps fiber trnasport link to the 
 transit.). The two routers were a P4 2Ghz, and a Dual XEON 2.2Ghz w/ 
 10,000rpm SCSI3.  The damage was that the CPU was nailed on both routers to 
 about 99.9% using TOP to monitor stats.  We varified that successful SSH 
 sessions were not made directly to the protected routers themselves.   Take 
 note that the wireless links were barely effected, it was the router 2 hops 
 away (Dual XEON) that got over loaded the most.  Our routers have been 
 tested to pass over 2 gbps of throughput easilly.  And have been load tested
 
 to survive very small packets and high PPS adequately. The infected sub was 
 bandwidth managed with HTB to 256k cir, 1 mbps mir, but not anything for 
 PPS.  So I'm looking for reasons that the CPU got overloaded.  My theory is 
 that the DOS attack resulted in a large number of disk writes, ( maybe 
 logging?) causing the CPU saturation.  I've had a hard time locating the 
 cause. And have not discovered which virus yet, although I should have more 
 info soon from my clients.
 
 So my question
 
 What needs to be done on a Linux machine to harden it, to protect against 
 CPU oversaturation, during DOS attacks?
 
 What should and shouldn't be logged? Connection Tracking? Firewall logging? 
 Traffic stats?
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 
 

Hi Tom,

What OS/application was running on these boxes? 

-Dee






Alaska Wireless Systems
1(907)240-2183 Cell
1(907)349-2226 Fax
1(907)349-4308 Office
www.akwireless.net




 
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


[WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet

2007-01-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU 
frame.

But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps.
The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a 1500MTU 
or smaller frame.
So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 mbps 
fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection.


So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get the 
advantage of the full 1GB of capacity?

Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology?
Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones?
Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers will 
likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers?

Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem?
Is that method available to Linux?

The reason I ask is several fold.  In a network design where all traffic 
flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls to remote areas 
to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial because the cost of 1 big 
1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity to everything, better apt to 
handle peak traffic and get higher oversubscription rates.   However, if teh 
GB INternet pipe can not be efficiently used, this method would be severally 
flawed. It might be better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections 
spread out across one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and 
the network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit 
connection, for better over all throughput.  In other words, in a 10 city 
network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a full 
combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps from each 
city to one central source where their was a single 1GB transit, would 
result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic was delivered to it as 
a 1500 MTU.


Any feedback?

Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card could 
only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests.  With the 1500MTU frame 
acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less than 20%, so it 
was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU to 9600, we got over 
800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, forget exact number but 
under 40%.  These tests were replicated going PC to PC (no switch) and with 
a high end SMC GB switch in-line.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet

2007-01-06 Thread Travis Johnson

Tom,

How are the big boys doing it? Surely ATT and others are transporting 
more than 200Mbps across their 1GB fiber links.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:
Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU 
frame.

But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps.
The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a 
1500MTU or smaller frame.
So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 
mbps fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection.


So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get 
the advantage of the full 1GB of capacity?

Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology?
Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones?
Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers 
will likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers?

Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem?
Is that method available to Linux?

The reason I ask is several fold.  In a network design where all 
traffic flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls 
to remote areas to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial 
because the cost of 1 big 1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity 
to everything, better apt to handle peak traffic and get higher 
oversubscription rates.   However, if teh GB INternet pipe can not be 
efficiently used, this method would be severally flawed. It might be 
better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections spread out across 
one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and the 
network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit 
connection, for better over all throughput.  In other words, in a 10 
city network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a 
full combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps 
from each city to one central source where their was a single 1GB 
transit, would result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic 
was delivered to it as a 1500 MTU.


Any feedback?

Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card 
could only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests.  With the 1500MTU 
frame acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less 
than 20%, so it was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU 
to 9600, we got over 800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, 
forget exact number but under 40%.  These tests were replicated going 
PC to PC (no switch) and with a high end SMC GB switch in-line.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet

2007-01-06 Thread Brad Belton
Hello Tom,

First let me saydamn Cowboys...sigh

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are saying, but we have pushed better
than 800Mbps HDX and more than 700Mbps FDX aggregate between GigE MT
routers.  Checking the router Interfaces show a 1500MTU setting.  Is that
what you are talking about?

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Optimally taking advantage of GB Ethernet

Tom,

How are the big boys doing it? Surely ATT and others are transporting 
more than 200Mbps across their 1GB fiber links.

Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:
 Gigabit Ethernet, can pass 1 gbps when it uses greater than a 9600 MTU 
 frame.
 But with a 1500MTU frame, it can barely pass 200 mbps.
 The problem is that most Internet and subscriber traffic is using a 
 1500MTU or smaller frame.
 So in theory, its would be just as efficient and fast to bond two 100 
 mbps fiber connections than it would to buy 1- 1GB fiber connection.

 So the question is How do we most efficiently use 1GB fiber to get 
 the advantage of the full 1GB of capacity?
 Do we need to use some sort of packet agreegation/stuffing technology?
 Is GB etherner pointless for Internet transit backbones?
 Is GB just good for high capacity Transports, recognizing that routers 
 will likely split traffic to different smaller bandwidth peers?
 Is there a special router or router feature used to solve this problem?
 Is that method available to Linux?

 The reason I ask is several fold.  In a network design where all 
 traffic flows to a single source (for example many 100mbps baclhauls 
 to remote areas to 1 central data center), it would be beneficial 
 because the cost of 1 big 1GB pipe could be shared to deliver capacity 
 to everything, better apt to handle peak traffic and get higher 
 oversubscription rates.   However, if teh GB INternet pipe can not be 
 efficiently used, this method would be severally flawed. It might be 
 better to have multipel 100mvps transit connections spread out across 
 one's network, so there was a shorter path to transit, and the 
 network's bandwdith spread out amungst multiple 100mbps transit 
 connection, for better over all throughput.  In other words, in a 10 
 city network, 1- 100mbps pipe in each of teh 10 cities would allow a 
 full combined 1 gbps of Internet transit, where as agregating 100mbps 
 from each city to one central source where their was a single 1GB 
 transit, would result in only a 200mbps throughput, assuming traffic 
 was delivered to it as a 1500 MTU.

 Any feedback?

 Take note that my comment that a 1500MTU frame 1 Gbps Ethernet card 
 could only pass 200kbps was based on some lab tests.  With the 1500MTU 
 frame acheiving only 200kbps, our routers CPU utilization was less 
 than 20%, so it was not a saturated router. The second we changed MTU 
 to 9600, we got over 800 mbps, and CPU utilization was still very low, 
 forget exact number but under 40%.  These tests were replicated going 
 PC to PC (no switch) and with a high end SMC GB switch in-line.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread RickG

Nice article! Thx! RickG

On 1/6/07, CHUCK  PROFITO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

NO EXPERIENCE, BUT AN INTERESTING ARTICLE TO READ AT
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/0913rev.html
CHUCK

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 12:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers


Happy New Year!

Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, 
D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health check
feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?

-RickG
Palm Beach Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread RickG

David,

This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG

On 1/6/07, David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

RickG wrote:

 Hey, I've been testing Dual-WAN routers. I've used Xincom, Linksys, 
 D-Link. The Linksys seems to be most reliable because it has a health
 check feature. Has anyone out there tried anything else?

Are you just looking for redundancy (i.e. automatic failover so if one
ISP or connection dies, you'll more-or-less transparently switch to the
second one), or for bonding or load balancing (i.e. double your
bandwidth by using both connections at once)?

Either way, building a system with Mikrotik's RouterOS software is
probably the answer you're looking for, or at least an acceptable
answer. Automatic failover is so easy, even I was able to figure it out;
the other fancy stuff you'd have to read up a bit, but it's quite possible.

Heck, the new(ish) RouterBoard 150 hardware comes with the software, and
the board itself can be found for around $70. Add in a power supply and
a case of some sort, and you've got a nice complete setup for around
$100. (I'm assuming you need JUST routing here; if you want this to be a
wireless client as well, you'd need a slightly more expensive piece of kit.)

David Smith
MVN.net
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
-RickG
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Dual-WAN routers

2007-01-06 Thread Butch Evans

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, David E. Smith wrote:


This is for the end user cpe side. I'd like to see both fail-over and
load balancing but fail-over is priority. No need for wireless. I'll
look into the microtik. Thanks! -RickG


Rick, keeping in mind that load balancing where you don't control 
both ends of both links is not truly possible, there is a way to 
SORT OF get this effect.  The problem is that some things have to be 
treated in a special way when you are using NAT (actually, 
masquerade, but we won't go there).  VoIP, P2P, VPN and a few others 
come to mind.  Either way, there are some things you can do to make 
this work with MT, and it's not that hard, but it IS a bit time 
consuming to get it right.


As for failover, there are several ways to do this, and some of them 
are pretty simple.  A bit of scripting knowledge is required, but 
other than that, it is not that bad to do.  There are some examples 
in the manual (as David pointed out)


Mikrotik RouterOS manual. In a pinch, I know we've got one or two 
Mikrotik trainers on the list; you could get them to show you how 
to do it. You only have to pay for it once, then you can just 
copy-and-paste the configuration from there on out. :D


Well, copy/paste for policy routing is not really that cut and 
dried.  It is best to understand what the policy states, then moving 
it to a new system is not that hard.  As I said, it is somewhat time 
consuming to get it working, however.


Fair warning, I haven't used the RouterBoard 150 hardware I 
mentioned, but most of their other hardware has treated me well, so 
I wouldn't expect that board to be any different.


I like the 150...it is a very inexpensive solution for a low end 
router (just $70 plus a case and powersupply).  The 153 is only $120 
and you can add radio cards.


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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