RE: [WISPA] School wants authentication
Can also drop the Aps on to a different VLAN, give out different Ips from your hotspot too if needed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete Davis Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] School wants authentication I think the Mikrotik hotspot would work well for you. The flexibility is nice. You can edit the HTML code. At one location, a hotel, the users click the link that would be normally for demo available, but it says I agree to terms and service The user/pw entries are hidden. The demo is set for 24 hrs, with re-allow login set to 1 second. At another location, I hid the password, and gave the users login names and blank passwords. This simplifies the login process, and the user's names are their last names. One login at a time. In this situation, you can use the standard user/pw in the school. Put in user/pw pairs of student ID number (or SS number) and the last name for the pw. If there are a LOT of students, a radius server would be logical. This gives the students the idea that their activity is logged, and their access is subject to revocation. This allows you to disable accounts for those who abuse the service. If you do this, you can leave the Access points all open with little risk for theft of service. pd John Scrivner wrote: I have a customer who is a high school. They have fiber run to switches in 10 buildings. All of those buildings are connected through one giant private class B via a DHCP server. We serve wireless to 100% of the campus, indoors and out, over this same network with several bridged APs (all certified and not exceeding any power rules - I promise). They would like authentication of users. I tried setting WPA2 with Radius Auth and created a mess. Every time the AP signal would hand off from one AP to another (which happens every couple of minutes or more often) the system would force re-authentication. It is a bit of a mess. Configuration of Windows XP for Radius Auth on WPA2 reminds me of the bad old days of having to tweak Trumpet Winsock or dealing with Windows Dial-up Adapter version 1.0. We had another issue with the APs just constantly forcing re-authentication via Radius. We have opted for WPA2 Passphrase to deliver AES encryption for now. This still leaves us with the authentication issue. They currently have a DHCP server with zero logging of users. People just connect and get an IP. It is a mess. I want to propose a better solution. I would like to see an authentication solution via a hotspot portal or equivalent which would force credentials be delivered by a user before any user has access to anything via wired or wireless network. Does anyone know a good way to do this? I have many ideas but I have never really done this and I would like to hear what others would propose to see if my ideas mesh or not. It is also good to see how others handle this type of situation. I am leaning to a Mikrotik hotspot gateway which I think will do it all. What say the rest of you? Scriv No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007 08:12 -- 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] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) wispa wrote: You can take his views however you wish... But NN legislation is probably on the way, and this could get real ugly...REAL ugly real fast. When DC takes on a problem, whether or not it really exists, it turns political instantly, and we could be the ones that get whipsawed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070228-075046-2287r.htm Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Some opinions
Carlos, 3 Questions: 1) How far apart are office 1 and office 2? 2) Can you see from one to the other? 3) Do you NEED to provide bandwidth to P1 P2 and P3? Dave Brenton General Manager Rural Tennessee Wireless Broadband Bringing FAST Internet to the rest of us (sm) Dover TN (931) 232-0914 office (931) 627-1142 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Carlos A. Garcia G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 13:40 Subject: [WISPA] Some opinions Hi i have 2 offices that i have to connect to do this i nedd to use the 3 points between them Office1-- P1--P2--P3--Office2 do any of you know what equipments can connect without using too many products for example to do that with cisco 1300 wireless bridges i need to use 8 radios and i want to use 5 Office-- -P1--P2--P3- --Office2 -- 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] External battery on UPS
Scott, Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery count. Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these things to see if they charged ;) Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the original configuration. Changing the quantity and/or type of battery risks damaging either the charger or the batteries. Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes the runtime. paul hendry wrote: Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each. Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100 batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I have out in the field (80w). It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and a 19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly. Now instead of 1 hour I get 13 hours. Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this. My goal is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a sensible price. One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to simply take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of the generator. I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go. It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 1000w generators and putting large custom tanks on them. That is if your UPS is not on the top of a water tower or something. ;) 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: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread. Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread Connectors: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=263-110 Batteries: http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Can we get some links to these batteries that work well? Gino, Got a link to the DC block connectors you were talking about? Brian Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We run two 4 gauge power wires out the front of the case, connect the positive to a 60A fuse, and then to the batteries. We are using AGM type (same thing used in UPS systems) big batteries (a little bigger than a car battery, but each battery is 110 pounds). We wire them in series (to get 24VDC). This setup has only been installed for 12-18 months at various locations, so I don't have an estimate on battery life. Travis Microserv Brian Rohrbacher wrote: You got any pics of this or similar Travisanyone? Travis, What APC do you use and what batteries are added? What do you draw and what is th run time? Do you know how many times the one with the most cycles has been drawn down? How long do the batteries last? Brian Travis Johnson wrote: You can't use just 1 battery. The APC units want to see 24vdc, so you need two batteries running in series. It works perfectly, as I have 20+ remote locations running off two gel type batteries. Make sure you install some type of a fuse on the positive side of the connection. Travis Microserv Mark Nash - Lists wrote: I believe I remember some discussion on this list on connecting an external battery to an APC UPS. I'm in the middle of doing it right now and am having problems. The UPS just beep continuously with the 'bad battery' light on. I'm using a Lifeline deep cycle battery.
RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until the batteries are gone and need to be recharged. The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might burn up the charger. Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with before you start any modifications. We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution. Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too expensive. I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically. We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter output, or additional external batteries. Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete? Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net Supernova Technologies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paul hendry Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS Scott, Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery count. Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these things to see if they charged ;) Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the original configuration. Changing the quantity and/or type of battery risks damaging either the charger or the batteries. Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes the runtime. paul hendry wrote: Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each. Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100 batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I have out in the field (80w). It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and a 19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly. Now instead of 1 hour I get 13 hours. Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this. My goal is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a sensible price. One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to simply take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of the generator. I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go. It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 1000w generators and putting large custom tanks on them. That is if your UPS is not on the top of a water tower or something. ;) 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: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread. Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread Connectors: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=263-110 Batteries: http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Can we get some links to these batteries that work well? Gino, Got a link to the DC block connectors you were talking about? Brian Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We run two 4 gauge power wires out the
Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
inline... -Original Message- From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 04:22 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the original configuration. Changing the quantity and/or type of battery risks damaging either the charger or the batteries. This is partly true. Some of the larger APC UPSes can have additional batteries added on, but there are limits to the number of additional battery packs you can add. Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes the runtime. paul hendry wrote: Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each. Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100 batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I have out in the field (80w). It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and a 19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly. Now instead of 1 hour I get 13 hours. Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this. My goal is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a sensible price. One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to simply take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of the generator. I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go. It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 1000w generators and putting large custom tanks on them. That is if your UPS is not on the top of a water tower or something. ;) 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: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread. Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread Connectors: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=263-110 Batteries: http://www.donrowe.com/batteries/8a31dt.html Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Can we get some links to these batteries that work well? Gino, Got a link to the DC block connectors you were talking about? Brian Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We run two 4 gauge power wires out the front of the case, connect the positive to a 60A fuse, and then to the batteries. We are using AGM type (same thing used in UPS systems) big batteries (a little bigger than a car battery, but each battery is 110 pounds). We wire them in series (to get 24VDC). This setup has only been installed for 12-18 months at various locations, so I don't have an estimate on battery life. Travis Microserv Brian Rohrbacher wrote: You got any pics of this or similar Travisanyone? Travis, What APC do you use and what batteries are added? What do you draw and what is th run time? Do you know how many times the one with the most cycles has been drawn down? How long do the batteries last? Brian Travis Johnson wrote: You can't use just 1 battery. The APC units want to see 24vdc, so you need two batteries running in series. It works perfectly, as I have 20+ remote locations running off two gel type batteries. Make sure you install some type of a fuse on the positive side of the connection. Travis Microserv Mark Nash - Lists wrote: I believe I remember some discussion on this list on connecting an external battery to an APC UPS. I'm in the middle of doing it right now and am having problems. The UPS just beep continuously with the 'bad battery' light on. I'm using a Lifeline deep cycle battery. Any ideas? Mark Nash Network Engineer UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax
Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone? -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 10:03 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know Not to change the subject, but on that page, I fund this a lot more disturbing.. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/03/vonage_fire.html wispa wrote: That at least SOME people agree with me. http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/regulatory?from=50 The second entry on that page is very interesting. While this entry is a bit out of date, he makes a very interesting point... That the feds are trying to figure out how to mandate the costs of whatever they want on industry... Very much akin to requiring every home to be built with peepholes, and platforms at our windows, so they look in on us without difficulty. Maybe even requiring remote control drapes? Yeah, yeah, I know, you have to be a political radical to NOT want that built into all our homes... but, he has a point. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] School wants authentication
-Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2007 02:19 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] School wants authentication I have a customer who is a high school. They have fiber run to switches in 10 buildings. All of those buildings are connected through one giant private class B via a DHCP server. We serve wireless to 100% of the campus, indoors and out, over this same network with several bridged APs (all certified and not exceeding any power rules - I promise). Please tell me you are routing between the wired and wireless segments. They would like authentication of users. I tried setting WPA2 with Radius Auth and created a mess. Every time the AP signal would hand off from one AP to another (which happens every couple of minutes or more often) the system would force re-authentication. It is a bit of a mess. Configuration of Windows XP for Radius Auth on WPA2 reminds me of the bad old days of having to tweak Trumpet Winsock or dealing with Windows Dial-up Adapter version 1.0. We had another issue with the APs just constantly forcing re-authentication via Radius. We have opted for WPA2 Passphrase to deliver AES encryption for now. This still leaves us with the authentication issue. They currently have a DHCP server with zero logging of users. People just connect and get an IP. It is a mess. I want to propose a better solution. I would like to see an authentication solution via a hotspot portal or equivalent which would force credentials be delivered by a user before any user has access to anything via wired or wireless network. Does anyone know a good way to do this? I have many ideas but I have never really done this and I would like to hear what others would propose to see if my ideas mesh or not. It is also good to see how others handle this type of situation. I am leaning to a Mikrotik hotspot gateway which I think will do it all. What say the rest of you? Scriv If they have Windows Server 2003, and the AP's support it, MS CHAP with PEAP works well for secure access. Since generally deploy Cisco Airespace, we can use the built in hotspot functionality for guest and other access. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on the agreement I make with my customers, should it not? I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is No, then perhaps we should rethink what we really want. I say that a lack of neutrality by other providers is opportunity for me, not a negative. And that as much as a subscription to your local newspaper doesn't give you the right have every news story, columnist, and cartoon delivered to your door, nor does subscribing to a tiered internet service. What do you think? Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:01:16 +, John J. Thomas wrote Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone? I have dialed 911 and had the call dropped. I guess I should sue the cell phone company and lobby Congress to ensure 911 calls cannot be dropped. Or maybe that's patently absurd. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS
Yes, especially if it would have multiple power taps. We are working on some stuff that would might need 12, 24 and 48 volts DC. John -Original Message- From: Russ Kreigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 10:18 AM To: ''WISPA General List'' Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS Yeah, it's completely possible, and will work well, at least once, until the batteries are gone and need to be recharged. The issue is the duty-cycle of the charger, your going from a 14ah to 100ah charge load, the charger has to run 7-times as long to fully charge the batteries, this may work fine with some higher end UPS, and some it might burn up the charger. Another thing to make note of, is that most UPS systems run an internal 24V system, and not a 12V system, so be SURE which one you're dealing with before you start any modifications. We're in process of developing our own remote-site power solution. Everything we've found is either too big physically, requiring expensive outdoor enclosures, or doesn't have the run-time we desire, or is too expensive. I think we've got the basic design down, we're adding things like a local power input option, so that in a long extended outage we can drop the generator off to charge the batteries and run the system, and when the utility power is restored, it will switch back automatically. We're also looking into a direct 12v input from a vehicle cigarette lighter output, or additional external batteries. Would anyone have any interest in this when we get it complete? Thanks, Russ Kreigh Network Engineer OnlyInternet.Net Supernova Technologies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paul hendry Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] External battery on UPS Scott, Surely it should be possible to replace 2 12v 7ah batteries run in parallel (not series) with 1 12v 100ah battery as the voltage isn't changing? With regards runtime I can just increase the external battery count. Mac, don't worry I have no intention of putting my tongue on these things to see if they charged ;) Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: Scott Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 March 2007 12:22 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS The charger is designed for the size and number of batteries in the original configuration. Changing the quantity and/or type of battery risks damaging either the charger or the batteries. Also, runtime is determined by the batteries, so changing them changes the runtime. paul hendry wrote: Is anyone using external batteries on the larger APC UPS's? I've got an old Smart-UPS 3000 RM that has 8 x 12v batteries in it. The thing is they are wired in a bit of a strange config. It looks to me like they are split into 4 sets of 2 batteries running in series then 2 of those sets are cabled to the same connector inside the UPS and so there are 2 connectors with 4 batteries hanging of each. Is there any reason I can't run 2 x 2 (in series) 12v 100ah batteries instead of the original 8? I don't seem to be able to and don't really want to get another 4 batteries just to discover I can do it with 4. Cheers, P. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash - Lists Sent: 16 November 2006 16:45 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I replaced the two internal batteries last night with two external, $100 batteries, and put a load on the UPS that matched the highest load I have out in the field (80w). It took 2 Tranzeo APs, an Xpeed SDSL modem, and a 19 TV on the QVC to load it up properly. Now instead of 1 hour I get 13 hours. Bigger, better batteries should net me more time than this. My goal is bang for buck at this stage in my business...more run time for a sensible price. One cool thing about this setup is that I can rig it up to be able to simply take new batteries out to a site when they are getting low, instead of the generator. I can keep some spare batteries charged up and ready to go. It's a whole lot cheaper and easier than purchasing multiple QUALITY 1000w generators and putting large custom tanks on them. That is if your UPS is not on the top of a water tower or something. ;) 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: Brian Rohrbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] External battery on UPS I'm pasting Gino's link to the right thread. Then I can search me email in a year and find the correct thread Connectors:
[WISPA] MT Command line revert
Is there a way to make a setting change in MT that will revert with in an amount of time if not commited? I thought I heard someone say there was but I can not find a reference to it. I would like to basically ssh into a system make a change to the radio which may take the cpe offline if it does not work. So I would like it to revert back to the original setting should that be the case. Thanks, John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Vonage Was Re: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know
My point was that they are slamming VOIP, when the cell phone companies stuff doesn't work any better. And, cell phone users have been paying a lot of money for upgrade to the cell phone networks that haven't even happened yet. John -Original Message- From: wispa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: Vonage WasRe: [WISPA] CALEA opinion... it's nice to know On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:01:16 +, John J. Thomas wrote Gee, has this ever happened to someone on a cell phone? I have dialed 911 and had the call dropped. I guess I should sue the cell phone company and lobby Congress to ensure 911 calls cannot be dropped. Or maybe that's patently absurd. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once. Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we allow on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let all the bits roll huh? I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from in all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this would mean is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices, etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network connection. In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be illustrated in this example involving VOIP: If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic. In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to be blocked from passing at all. Here is another example of First do no harm If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion. This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the First do no harm mission. I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net Neutrality to argue their stance. Scriv wispa wrote: On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on the agreement I make with my customers, should it not? I've been tempted to offer a web only service, appropriately priced, that blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns. Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is No, then perhaps we should rethink
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
http://ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html If anyone is really interested in what the big boys have to say and how each side looks at things. I watched this last weekend, was interesting. George John Scrivner wrote: Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once. Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we allow on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let all the bits roll huh? I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from in all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this would mean is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices, etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network connection. In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be illustrated in this example involving VOIP: If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic. In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to be blocked from passing at all. Here is another example of First do no harm If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion. This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the First do no harm mission. I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net Neutrality to argue their stance. Scriv wispa wrote: On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a REAL right to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on the agreement I make with my customers,
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality - a somewhat different take
Panel 3 might get to the point quicker. It's titled: Discrimination, Blockage, and Vertical Integration George Rogato wrote: http://ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html If anyone is really interested in what the big boys have to say and how each side looks at things. I watched this last weekend, was interesting. George John Scrivner wrote: Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once. Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative exploits to the masses. We should have a right to decide what we allow on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can offer a no limits connection to every person who connects. Let all the bits roll huh? I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue. Forcing Net Neutrality is something almost nobody can benefit from in all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry to agree to a First do no harm mission statement. What this would mean is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices, etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network connection. In its most basic application the First do no harm mission could be illustrated in this example involving VOIP: If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic. In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to be blocked from passing at all. Here is another example of First do no harm If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion. This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the First do no harm mission. I would be glad to debate why a First do no harm mission would be a better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives. This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net Neutrality to argue their stance. Scriv wispa wrote: On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?) Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't advocate NN in any and every form is owned by the telcos. That's a complete disservice to the debate and to yourself. He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done), or content. Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation. However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to avoid compaign reform law entanglements. In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not encroach on our most fundamental freedoms. If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market. As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast,
Re: [WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
60 ghz is great stuff! Would be wonderful for PANs. marlon - Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:55 AM Subject: [WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz? In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
Mark, I think 60 Ghz is a good solution if you can afford it. At this point it is still not in the price range of the average WISP but it is great stuff. I think Matt Liotta had a link or 2 with some 60 Ghz gear. Regards, Dawn DiPietro wispa wrote: In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz?
Why not? Many are already using KA band on their devices. How many DirecTV, Dish Network and WildBlue dishes do you see? KA Band: 20 GHz and 30 GHz Here's background info on how one company (WildBlue) does it. I had no idea they were using an Anik (Canadian Satellite). http://www.satsig.net/ka-band-anik-f2-wildblue-telesat.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wispa Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Is anyone thinking about 17 and 60 ghz? In the search for the bigger last mile pipe, there's unlicensed at both 17 and 60 ghz. I'm not sure if the consumer electronics industry is up for working at 60 ghz, but what about 17 ghz? Google gets me a lot of theoretical work at both, and engineering discussions of both, but nothing that looks like something otehr than talkware. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- 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] MT Command line revert
Press Ctrl-X to enter safe mode, and Ctrl-X to get out of safe mode. Disconnects revert all settings after Ctrl-X... - Original Message - From: JNA [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] MT Command line revert Is there a way to make a setting change in MT that will revert with in an amount of time if not commited? I thought I heard someone say there was but I can not find a reference to it. I would like to basically ssh into a system make a change to the radio which may take the cpe offline if it does not work. So I would like it to revert back to the original setting should that be the case. Thanks, John -- 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: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.6/709 - Release Date: 3/3/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Command line revert
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, JNA wrote: Is there a way to make a setting change in MT that will revert with in an amount of time if not commited? I thought I heard someone say there was but I can not find a reference to it. I would like to basically ssh into a system make a change to the radio which may take the cpe offline if it does not work. So I would like it to revert back to the original setting should that be the case. From the terminal, hit CTRL-X. That will put you in safe mode. In that mode, if you are unexpectedly disconnected, changes will be reverted automatically. -- 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/
[WISPA] Ok, so, unique commentary on WISP business.
http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/10548 The guy thinks that Clearwire will do well becuase they do NOT bundle. I have no personal experience, but from my area, the service is more costly than mine and performs poorly - or so says the few people who claim to know someone who uses or were going to use it. Interesting take, too. Not bundling gives us a clear advantage in the niche market. h. Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
