Re: [WISPA] how to protect your kids
Speak firmly and borrow that big stick from Roosevelt when necessary. Fear of God is useless but Fear of Dad is profound. I raised 5 kids, youngest is 32, still works, no stick necessary, they just know where i keep it. Frank Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > Hi All, > > Here's the scenario. My kids are expressly forbidden from having email > addresses outside my domain. They are forbidden from having myspace, > facebook etc. sites. > > If they want an email, fine by me, but it's one that *I* can check on. > > If they want a web site, fine by me, but make it a real one that *I* can > delete things from. > > I'm trying to teach them to NOT do or say things on the internet that might > bite them in the butt later. The days of people eventually forgetting the > stupidity of youth or passion are long gone. > > Anyway, my 13 year old has a myspace account. He used a hotmail email > address to get it. He had permission to use neither of them. I finally > found out about the myspace account and went in to check out what he'd been > saying. His trash and sent messages had both been erased between when I got > the password out of him and when I had time to check on it. (I didn't know > that his zune, a video player would ALSO allow him to get on the net and > work on his page, talk to his friends etc. deep sigh) > > So, I contacted myspace, using his account, and asked for all of the deleted > information. I explained that I was the father of a minor and that he had > no permission to use their site and I wanted to know what was being hidden > from me. I gave my full name AND phone number as well as my email address. > > They were very good about contacting me quickly about this issue. However > they flatly refused to provide me with any information! They had NO > proof of age etc. on the account. Nothing to verify that the child was over > 18 etc. And *I* as the PARENT am prevented from accessing the account > information! "go get it from your teen" is basically what I was told. > > WTF is this??? Absolutly amazing. > > So, what do the rest of you do to try to protect or control your kids these > days? > > thanks > marlon > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] how to protect your kids
My soon to be 4 and 7 yo boys have iMacs. They are locked down and just do not know about that stuff yet. I removed access to the web browser in the PSP cause the oldest found it. He does not know how to use it (or so I think). The best parents can do these days is be very proactive which you seam to be trying to do. I do not know the legalities of monitoring a kids device, i leave that up to parents and their lawyers. There are key loggers for pretty much everything out there, VPN's to make sure the data comes back to you first, and so on. Talk to your lawyer. If your child has access to these services from another location then I would assume access from there will or has been used. Find out if so and who owns it, you might be able to access much of that history from there. Also the great way back machine and google cache can often have copies of peoples pages. Talk with your lawyer. If I came to you and said your site had given access to my minor, how would your advisers tell you to respond? Likely to fluff me off as fast as possible to avoid any liability. It could take a simple request from a letter head to get them moving on it, or possibly real threat of legal action. Did I mention, talk to your lawyer. S/He will be the best source of information for correct surveilla^R^R parenting of digital children. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > Hi All, > > Here's the scenario. My kids are expressly forbidden from having email > addresses outside my domain. They are forbidden from having myspace, > facebook etc. sites. > > If they want an email, fine by me, but it's one that *I* can check on. > > If they want a web site, fine by me, but make it a real one that *I* can > delete things from. > > I'm trying to teach them to NOT do or say things on the internet that might > bite them in the butt later. The days of people eventually forgetting the > stupidity of youth or passion are long gone. > > Anyway, my 13 year old has a myspace account. He used a hotmail email > address to get it. He had permission to use neither of them. I finally > found out about the myspace account and went in to check out what he'd been > saying. His trash and sent messages had both been erased between when I got > the password out of him and when I had time to check on it. (I didn't know > that his zune, a video player would ALSO allow him to get on the net and > work on his page, talk to his friends etc. deep sigh) > > So, I contacted myspace, using his account, and asked for all of the deleted > information. I explained that I was the father of a minor and that he had > no permission to use their site and I wanted to know what was being hidden > from me. I gave my full name AND phone number as well as my email address. > > They were very good about contacting me quickly about this issue. However > they flatly refused to provide me with any information! They had NO > proof of age etc. on the account. Nothing to verify that the child was over > 18 etc. And *I* as the PARENT am prevented from accessing the account > information! "go get it from your teen" is basically what I was told. > > WTF is this??? Absolutly amazing. > > So, what do the rest of you do to try to protect or control your kids these > days? > > thanks > marlon > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
On that note, I have a few questions. On those 40-50 802.11 subs, what kind of bandwidth are the users seeing/are you selling them? Do you count a polling MAC on a 802.11 chipset, say Ubiquiti AirMax, in with 802.11? My assumption would be that with a polling MAC on 802.11 chips you should see nearly the number of subs of Canopy minus the frequency reuse you get with GPS sync. Would you say that is accurate? On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > Right on schedule, its time for the 802.11 vs Canopy crusades. > > If you deploy it right, you should be able to get about 40-50 subs on > 802.11 based APs. If your application is going to require higher > density than that, go with Canopy, as you can probably get 120-150 per > AP before they max out. If you intend to deploy symmetrical speeds, > you should probably deploy Canopy. > > 10mhz channel sizes seem to make a big difference on 802.11, as you can > then put up more sectors and the throughput doesn't diminish that much > with the half-size channels. I wouldn't put up Ubiquiti or Tranzeo > APs, I would definitely go with StarOS or Mikrotik for the APs to get > the added functionality that they offer. I have several thousand subs > deployed on my network and on networks that I designed handling VOIP and > just about any other application needed by the end users just fine - all > with 802.11 based gear. A special thanks to the Canopy guys out there > who have been selling me their used Tranzeo CPEs - your old radios are > alive and well on my network. Win-Win. > > If you are going to scale to huge numbers per AP, you will need to be > just as concerned with obtaining high-capacity backhaul than PtMP > performance. The 802.11 based backhauls are cheap and ubiquitous and > do pretty good up to about 20meg, but they are about done at that > point. Drop the extra coin and get licensed backhauls. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > On 4/13/2010 8:06 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: >> This is what I am in the process of doing now. We have another 200 subs >> to be converted next month. Then another 100 subs after that. Not only >> is it a multiple truck roll incident, but I already paid for the >> MikroTik gear...and now am replacing customer equipment with Canopy. >> ROI just got extended an additional 6 months. We just replaced a >> complete Trango 900 AP with Canopy 900. Performance is just better and >> it scales. >> >> Regards, >> Chuck Hogg >> Shelby Broadband >> 502-722-9292 >> ch...@shelbybb.com >> http://www.shelbybb.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:24 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand >> >> Hi, >> >> Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale >> infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and >> consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much >> cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. >> However, it does not scale. >> >> So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to the >> size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are roughly >> six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None >> of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels >> to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent >> channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each >> other on the same channel. >> >> The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP >> deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up having to >> go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change them >> out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> >> Glenn Kelley wrote: >> >>> In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may >>> help. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment >>> >>> 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an >>> issue vs the # of customers you have? >>> ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week >>> >> >>> then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) >>> >>> 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is >>> equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity >>> radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... >>> so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in >>> that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity >>> users ... >>> >>> >>> >>> Moto Users - do you have this info as well: >>> >>> Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is >>> actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would >>> be most beneficial for sure. >>> >>> Buying a Moto radio -
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Depends on how you build it. The backhauls are bridged, but there is routing between key backhaul points (I make triangles) Every tool has its place and used right, works well. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > When to route? From the very start!!! > > If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or > use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design > for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the > basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too > complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much > easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into > the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically > re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily > set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on > backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. > > Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a > bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your >> (mostly) good (this is how i do it) >> What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers >> backwards and things like that. >> It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, >> switch inside) >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: >> >>> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >>> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >>> high, right? >>> >>> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >>> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >>> seen a difference yet. >>> >>> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. marlon - Original Message - From: "Greg Ihnen" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: [WISPA] When to route? > OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if > the networks are small? > > The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting > up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). > > What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box > is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also > wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One > backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station > and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of > NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is > a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in > the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some > clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from > the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between > the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. > > > > ---PS2~~~PS2 > with clients (192.168.0.x) > / > Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x > \ > > NS5M~NS5MBullet2M > with clients 192.168.7.x > > > I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the > network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is > also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that > right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different > segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic > accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP > were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only > travel the pertinent network segment? > > Greg > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
Right on schedule, its time for the 802.11 vs Canopy crusades. If you deploy it right, you should be able to get about 40-50 subs on 802.11 based APs. If your application is going to require higher density than that, go with Canopy, as you can probably get 120-150 per AP before they max out.If you intend to deploy symmetrical speeds, you should probably deploy Canopy. 10mhz channel sizes seem to make a big difference on 802.11, as you can then put up more sectors and the throughput doesn't diminish that much with the half-size channels. I wouldn't put up Ubiquiti or Tranzeo APs, I would definitely go with StarOS or Mikrotik for the APs to get the added functionality that they offer. I have several thousand subs deployed on my network and on networks that I designed handling VOIP and just about any other application needed by the end users just fine - all with 802.11 based gear. A special thanks to the Canopy guys out there who have been selling me their used Tranzeo CPEs - your old radios are alive and well on my network. Win-Win. If you are going to scale to huge numbers per AP, you will need to be just as concerned with obtaining high-capacity backhaul than PtMP performance. The 802.11 based backhauls are cheap and ubiquitous and do pretty good up to about 20meg, but they are about done at that point. Drop the extra coin and get licensed backhauls. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/13/2010 8:06 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: > This is what I am in the process of doing now. We have another 200 subs > to be converted next month. Then another 100 subs after that. Not only > is it a multiple truck roll incident, but I already paid for the > MikroTik gear...and now am replacing customer equipment with Canopy. > ROI just got extended an additional 6 months. We just replaced a > complete Trango 900 AP with Canopy 900. Performance is just better and > it scales. > > Regards, > Chuck Hogg > Shelby Broadband > 502-722-9292 > ch...@shelbybb.com > http://www.shelbybb.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:24 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand > > Hi, > > Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale > infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and > consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much > cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. > However, it does not scale. > > So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to the > size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are roughly > six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None > of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels > to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent > channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each > other on the same channel. > > The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP > deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up having to > go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change them > out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > >> In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may >> help. >> >> >> >> 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment >> >> 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an >> issue vs the # of customers you have? >> ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week >> > >> then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) >> >> 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is >> equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity >> radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... >> so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in >> that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity >> users ... >> >> >> >> Moto Users - do you have this info as well: >> >> Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is >> actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would >> be most beneficial for sure. >> >> Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service >> calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. >> >> Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as >> client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much >> easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be >> > great. > >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> > ---
[WISPA] how to protect your kids
Hi All, Here's the scenario. My kids are expressly forbidden from having email addresses outside my domain. They are forbidden from having myspace, facebook etc. sites. If they want an email, fine by me, but it's one that *I* can check on. If they want a web site, fine by me, but make it a real one that *I* can delete things from. I'm trying to teach them to NOT do or say things on the internet that might bite them in the butt later. The days of people eventually forgetting the stupidity of youth or passion are long gone. Anyway, my 13 year old has a myspace account. He used a hotmail email address to get it. He had permission to use neither of them. I finally found out about the myspace account and went in to check out what he'd been saying. His trash and sent messages had both been erased between when I got the password out of him and when I had time to check on it. (I didn't know that his zune, a video player would ALSO allow him to get on the net and work on his page, talk to his friends etc. deep sigh) So, I contacted myspace, using his account, and asked for all of the deleted information. I explained that I was the father of a minor and that he had no permission to use their site and I wanted to know what was being hidden from me. I gave my full name AND phone number as well as my email address. They were very good about contacting me quickly about this issue. However they flatly refused to provide me with any information! They had NO proof of age etc. on the account. Nothing to verify that the child was over 18 etc. And *I* as the PARENT am prevented from accessing the account information! "go get it from your teen" is basically what I was told. WTF is this??? Absolutly amazing. So, what do the rest of you do to try to protect or control your kids these days? thanks marlon WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] When to route?
When to route? From the very start!!! If you take the time to learn the basics of OSPF, implement NAT and/or use private IPs for the links between systems and use a logical design for your subnets it is relatively easy to route. Understanding the basics of OSPF is really key, because static routing gets too complicated after the first few nodes and OSPF will handle it all much easier. OSPF also makes it possible to build automatic failover into the network. I have several "rings" in my network that automatically re-route in different directions when there are outages and I can easily set preference for traffic to flow in different directions based on backhaul capacity, latency and other factors. Bridging is a disaster waiting to happen. Every day that you run a bridged network is a day closer to the eventual disaster. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/13/2010 11:37 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your > (mostly) good (this is how i do it) > What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers > backwards and things like that. > It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, > switch inside) > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: > >> Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are >> mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that >> high, right? >> >> I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between >> longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've >> seen a difference yet. >> >> On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> >>> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start >>> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >>> marlon >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Greg Ihnen" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >>> >>> >>> >>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if the networks are small? The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. ---PS2~~~PS2 with clients (192.168.0.x) / Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x \ NS5M~NS5MBullet2M with clients 192.168.7.x I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only travel the pertinent network segment? Greg WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.w
Re: [WISPA] When to route?
Yes if you route at the CPE then the backhauls can bridge and your (mostly) good (this is how i do it) What you need to worry about here is clients who plug in their routers backwards and things like that. It helps if you do not have client routers (routing/dhcp in the CPE, switch inside) On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Mark Dueck wrote: > Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are > mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that > high, right? > > I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between > longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've > seen a difference yet. > > On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start >> routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Greg Ihnen" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] When to route? >> >> >> >>> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >>> the networks are small? >>> >>> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >>> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >>> >>> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >>> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >>> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >>> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >>> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >>> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >>> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >>> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >>> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >>> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >>> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >>> >>> >>> >>> ---PS2~~~PS2 >>> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>> / >>> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>> \ >>> >>> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >>> with clients 192.168.7.x >>> >>> >>> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >>> network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is >>> also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that >>> right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different >>> segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic >>> accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP >>> were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only >>> travel the pertinent network segment? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] When to route?
Question: If you have all client computers behind a router, then you are mostly protected from broadcasting and the need for routing is not that high, right? I have a small network and I'm starting to do some routing between longer backhaul links, and between cities. So far, I don't know if I've seen a difference yet. On 04/13/2010 10:08 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start > routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. > marlon > > - Original Message - > From: "Greg Ihnen" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM > Subject: [WISPA] When to route? > > > >> OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if >> the networks are small? >> >> The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting >> up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). >> >> What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box >> is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also >> wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One >> backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station >> and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of >> NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is >> a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in >> the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some >> clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from >> the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between >> the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. >> >> >> >> ---PS2~~~PS2 >> with clients (192.168.0.x) >>/ >> Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >>\ >> >> NS5M~NS5MBullet2M >> with clients 192.168.7.x >> >> >> I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the >> network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is >> also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that >> right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different >> segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic >> accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP >> were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only >> travel the pertinent network segment? >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >>But for the >>price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what >>could be done. > > Well, thats the golden question... > > We dont currently use Ubiquiti yet in a live network, but we cant ignore the > value proposition. > When APs are $90, do we need APs that scale? canopy@ made a good point that when you can only operate at 5.8 GHz which has only 6 channels, AP scaling is important. But although he or she is right that Ubiquiti cannot be used right now in the US at 5.4 GHz, that's just a matter of time. And 5.4 GHz can tolerate lesser spectral efficiency as it has much more spectrum and have power limits and DFS requirements that is very positive in making inter-provider interference easier to handle. > But we do need radios that stay associated though. > > Good to hear, some are reporting the new beta5 firmware is appearing to run > stable with WDS. Which might be just a breathe before another bug or impact of WDS is noticed in the field. And it's not Ubiquiti's fault, it's WDS fault. May be next time IEEE come up with a good WDS solution on the standard, but for now, it's seems a liability. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
>But for the >price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what >could be done. Well, thats the golden question... We dont currently use Ubiquiti yet in a live network, but we cant ignore the value proposition. When APs are $90, do we need APs that scale? But we do need radios that stay associated though. Good to hear, some are reporting the new beta5 firmware is appearing to run stable with WDS. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rubens Kuhl" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. Is it a coincidence that your e-mail address is canopy@ ? :-) I've noticed WDS problems with Wi-Fi gear for a long time; previously it was more easily triggered by security protocols and channel selections. With 802.11n there seems to be added problems with association and performance impacts on the 802.11n MAC aggregation mechanisms. That's why I currently believe in scaling Wi-Fi based (even with proprietary polling protocols like nstreme or AirMax) without using WDS, which is not part of the 802.11 specification BTW. One can add a Mikrotik RB-750 at every customer site for US$40 and achieve whatever Layer-2 transparency (by using MPLS/VPLS, EoIP, Ethernet over PPP) and user enforcement/control (filtering to allow only PPPoE frames, doing a hotspot authentication at the RB750 or what fits best your business model) and then use whatever radio network is offering good quality at good prices at that time. Regarding the latency spikes, 802.11e might be useful and probably more powerful having a CPE device that could mark QoS/ToS/DSCP/CoS/EXP before it comes to the radio. I haven't seen a working 802.11e-based network yet, but there are very few end-to-end QoS-enabled IP networks on the world and it took $M, not $k, money to build them, so it was very unlikely that I could find one with 802.11 devices. But for the price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what could be done. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] When to route?
We're up to about 400 subs on one half of the network. We're about to start routing. We'll know in a few months if it helps or not. marlon - Original Message - From: "Greg Ihnen" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: [WISPA] When to route? > OK, I know: "friends don't let friends bridge networks". But at what if > the networks are small? > > The reason I ask is I'm wondering if I'd have anything to gain by setting > up static routing (now that the new UBNT beta added this to the gui). > > What I have is a satellite internet modem going to an MT box. The MT box > is wired to an 802.11g AP/wired switch (which has wireless clients). Also > wired to that switch are two backhauls with clients at the far ends. One > backhaul is a pair of PS2's (the one closest to the switch is WDS Station > and the far end is WDS AP with clients). The other backhaul is a pair of > NS5M's running Airmax (obviously no clients) and wired to the far NS5M is > a Bullet 2M running as 802.11b/g/n AP with clients. All the hardware is in > the 192.168.7.x/24 range as are most of the clients, though I give some > clients addresses in the 192.168.0.x/24 range to keep them isolated from > the hardware and other clients. The MT box doesn't allow traffic between > the 192.168.7.x and the 192.168.0.x net. > > > ---PS2~~~PS2 > with clients (192.168.0.x) >/ > Sat modem---MT box---switch/ap with clients 192.168.7.x >\ > > NS5M~NS5MBullet2M > with clients 192.168.7.x > > > I'm assuming now traffic for all clients transit all segments of the > network i.e. traffic for a client wirelessly connected to the Bullet2M is > also transiting the segment of the network comprised of the PS2's. Is that > right or does the gear (in this case the switch joining the different > segments of the network learn who's where and route the traffic > accordingly? I'm assuming not. So if I made it so the clients on each AP > were in a different subnet and static routed then traffic would only > travel the pertinent network segment? > > Greg > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. Is it a coincidence that your e-mail address is canopy@ ? :-) I've noticed WDS problems with Wi-Fi gear for a long time; previously it was more easily triggered by security protocols and channel selections. With 802.11n there seems to be added problems with association and performance impacts on the 802.11n MAC aggregation mechanisms. That's why I currently believe in scaling Wi-Fi based (even with proprietary polling protocols like nstreme or AirMax) without using WDS, which is not part of the 802.11 specification BTW. One can add a Mikrotik RB-750 at every customer site for US$40 and achieve whatever Layer-2 transparency (by using MPLS/VPLS, EoIP, Ethernet over PPP) and user enforcement/control (filtering to allow only PPPoE frames, doing a hotspot authentication at the RB750 or what fits best your business model) and then use whatever radio network is offering good quality at good prices at that time. Regarding the latency spikes, 802.11e might be useful and probably more powerful having a CPE device that could mark QoS/ToS/DSCP/CoS/EXP before it comes to the radio. I haven't seen a working 802.11e-based network yet, but there are very few end-to-end QoS-enabled IP networks on the world and it took $M, not $k, money to build them, so it was very unlikely that I could find one with 802.11 devices. But for the price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what could be done. Rubens WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti made no points today
It could be the same board minus the voltage regulator. And the new production line will have the regulator. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: > If its the same board why is it a completely different power > configuration? > > Scott Carullo > Brevard Wireless > 321-205-1100 x102 > > > > From: "Faisal Imtiaz" > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:24 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti made no points today > > Hmm Interesting.. > > My first Airgird , I assembled it wrong, I put the Radio in the center at > 90deg of what it should have been, and was not able to see any signal from > the Rocket M5's. > It had an accident, fell flat on it's face on concrete and broke the > Radio.. > The 2nd Airgrid I tested was the smaller one, that was able to see the > signal from the Rocket M5, but was very very sensitive to allignment... We > were testing at 8.8 miles... > > Also tested the Nanobridge very sensitive and difficult to align, very > narrow beamwidth... We don't have a clean LOS on this link (we do have two > Rocket M5's working with 2ft Dishes, working very well...), however the > Nanobridge could hear the Rocket M5 w/ 16db 90deg (smaller sector), but the > Pannel was having trouble hearing the NanoBridge... > > For testing, I switched to the lower band and turned up the power, and was > able to establish a link... since we were testing, I did not leave it > up...plus chalked off poor link in the normal 5.8 band due to not a clean > LOS and interference... Need to do some more testing at a 2-4 mile link to > get some conclusive answers. > > Some of the folks on the UBNT list have reported the NanoBridge they > recieved working on lower band but not working properly on the higher side > of the band... > > I would suggest that you do some testing at distance greater than inside > the office to something less than 4 miles... to get an idea of what exactly > is going on > > The btw, the board inside the Airgird is the same board as what is inside > the Bullet M... > > Faisal > > -- Original Message -- > From: Forbes Mercy > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:01:21 -0700 > >>After falling in like with the Rocket M Nano's the Rocket M Bullets and >>the Mimos I have to say I'm firmly unimpressed with the integrated >>antenna series. We bought a pack of 10 of the 27dbi grids, not one of >>them would associate to our Mimos yet a bullet and in some cases, where >>distance wasn't a factor, the Nano Rockets did so without a problem. We >>just took delivery on the Nano Dish units, we wanted them to do some >>short range backhauls. >> >>Today was our first, replacing a 10MB Motorola backhaul at 5.2 miles, we >>set up the new dishes up in the office WDS on, WPA on they connected at >>-50 (as they should in the office), connection firm all night. >>Installed them today, the AP working well we headed up the mountain to >>install the other one. It would not see or connect to the other Nano >>Dish no matter whether we used the lower powered 5.2 or the more >>generous 5.7/8 frequency range. Gradually turning off the WDS, then the >>WPA, then making it 20 MHZ, finally we gave up and the unnecessary >>beating to my bucket truck that had to climb that mountain left me in a >>pretty foul mood over the new gear. I'm about to RMA all of it and go >>back to just bullets and Rockets. >> >>Forbes >> >> >>--- > - >>WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.or
Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
Hi Chuck, Do you have any field review/ deployment info comparison of the new Canopy 430 ? I would love to hear some comparison info.. Thanks Faisal. On 4/13/2010 10:06 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: > This is what I am in the process of doing now. We have another 200 subs > to be converted next month. Then another 100 subs after that. Not only > is it a multiple truck roll incident, but I already paid for the > MikroTik gear...and now am replacing customer equipment with Canopy. > ROI just got extended an additional 6 months. We just replaced a > complete Trango 900 AP with Canopy 900. Performance is just better and > it scales. > > Regards, > Chuck Hogg > Shelby Broadband > 502-722-9292 > ch...@shelbybb.com > http://www.shelbybb.com > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:24 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand > > Hi, > > Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale > infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and > consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much > cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. > However, it does not scale. > > So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to the > size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are roughly > six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None > of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels > to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent > channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each > other on the same channel. > > The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP > deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up having to > go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change them > out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > >> In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may >> help. >> >> >> >> 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment >> >> 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an >> issue vs the # of customers you have? >> ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week >> > >> then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) >> >> 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is >> equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity >> radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... >> so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in >> that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity >> users ... >> >> >> >> Moto Users - do you have this info as well: >> >> Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is >> actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would >> be most beneficial for sure. >> >> Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service >> calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. >> >> Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as >> client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much >> easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be >> > great. > >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Tom, With no security or security set to WPA2-AES and the latest beta firmware there are no WDS problems with the new gear - I have plenty of them out there doing their job just fine. As with any radio, you can certainly probably find ways to configure them to have them not perform so well. Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 From: "Tom DeReggi" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:50 PM To: can...@believewireless.net, "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > WDS re-reg issues Care to elaborate with that? We run everything bridged (WDS) with other brands. Were you running into issues using Ubiquity as both AP and SU in PtMP, or with other brand as the other? > but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. What do you attribute the latency spikes to? Do you get the latency Spikes with both the CDMA modes and the proprietary TDD imulation modes? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "can...@believewireless.net" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti made no points today
If its the same board why is it a completely different power configuration? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 From: "Faisal Imtiaz" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:24 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti made no points today Hmm Interesting.. My first Airgird , I assembled it wrong, I put the Radio in the center at 90deg of what it should have been, and was not able to see any signal from the Rocket M5's. It had an accident, fell flat on it's face on concrete and broke the Radio.. The 2nd Airgrid I tested was the smaller one, that was able to see the signal from the Rocket M5, but was very very sensitive to allignment... We were testing at 8.8 miles... Also tested the Nanobridge very sensitive and difficult to align, very narrow beamwidth... We don't have a clean LOS on this link (we do have two Rocket M5's working with 2ft Dishes, working very well...), however the Nanobridge could hear the Rocket M5 w/ 16db 90deg (smaller sector), but the Pannel was having trouble hearing the NanoBridge... For testing, I switched to the lower band and turned up the power, and was able to establish a link... since we were testing, I did not leave it up...plus chalked off poor link in the normal 5.8 band due to not a clean LOS and interference... Need to do some more testing at a 2-4 mile link to get some conclusive answers. Some of the folks on the UBNT list have reported the NanoBridge they recieved working on lower band but not working properly on the higher side of the band... I would suggest that you do some testing at distance greater than inside the office to something less than 4 miles... to get an idea of what exactly is going on The btw, the board inside the Airgird is the same board as what is inside the Bullet M... Faisal -- Original Message -- From: Forbes Mercy Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:01:21 -0700 >After falling in like with the Rocket M Nano's the Rocket M Bullets and >the Mimos I have to say I'm firmly unimpressed with the integrated >antenna series. We bought a pack of 10 of the 27dbi grids, not one of >them would associate to our Mimos yet a bullet and in some cases, where >distance wasn't a factor, the Nano Rockets did so without a problem. We >just took delivery on the Nano Dish units, we wanted them to do some >short range backhauls. > >Today was our first, replacing a 10MB Motorola backhaul at 5.2 miles, we >set up the new dishes up in the office WDS on, WPA on they connected at >-50 (as they should in the office), connection firm all night. >Installed them today, the AP working well we headed up the mountain to >install the other one. It would not see or connect to the other Nano >Dish no matter whether we used the lower powered 5.2 or the more >generous 5.7/8 frequency range. Gradually turning off the WDS, then the >WPA, then making it 20 MHZ, finally we gave up and the unnecessary >beating to my bucket truck that had to climb that mountain left me in a >pretty foul mood over the new gear. I'm about to RMA all of it and go >back to just bullets and Rockets. > >Forbes > > >--- - >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
They have been monitoring wisp "chatter" for years!!:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Brian Webster wrote: From: Brian Webster Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: "'WISPA General List'" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 8:23 PM Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: "WISPA General List" , nnsq...@nnsquad.org, "Telecom Regulation & the Internet" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort l
Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
This is what I am in the process of doing now. We have another 200 subs to be converted next month. Then another 100 subs after that. Not only is it a multiple truck roll incident, but I already paid for the MikroTik gear...and now am replacing customer equipment with Canopy. ROI just got extended an additional 6 months. We just replaced a complete Trango 900 AP with Canopy 900. Performance is just better and it scales. Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand Hi, Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. However, it does not scale. So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to the size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are roughly six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each other on the same channel. The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up having to go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change them out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( Travis Microserv Glenn Kelley wrote: > In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may > help. > > > > 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment > > 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an > issue vs the # of customers you have? > ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week > then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) > > 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is > equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity > radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... > so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in > that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity > users ... > > > > Moto Users - do you have this info as well: > > Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is > actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would > be most beneficial for sure. > > Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service > calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. > > Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as > client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much > easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be great. > > > Thanks > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
Awesome overview - thank you. On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale > infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and > consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much > cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. > However, it does not scale. > > So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to > the > size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are > roughly > six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None > of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels > to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent > channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each > other on the same channel. > > The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP > deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up > having to > go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change > them > out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > Glenn Kelley wrote: >> In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may >> help. >> >> >> >> 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment >> >> 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an >> issue vs the # of customers you have? >> ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a >> week >> then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) >> >> 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is >> equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity >> radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... >> so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in >> that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity >> users ... >> >> >> >> Moto Users - do you have this info as well: >> >> Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is >> actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would >> be most beneficial for sure. >> >> Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service >> calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. >> >> Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as >> client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much >> easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be >> great. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Absolutely. MikroTik has in many instances taken supout's from many different people, and fixed a bug without reporting it. Maybe they look at it as a minor feature enhancement. (LOL) Regards, Chuck Hogg Shelby Broadband 502-722-9292 ch...@shelbybb.com http://www.shelbybb.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison Are you suggesting they might not always fess up, but sneak the fix in :-) I'll probably test it again in a few days, just in case. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > One thing I have learned over the years with Mikrotik... they often make > many other "changes" that they don't specifically list in their text > document. > > Travis > Microserv > > Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Misread >> >> I did NOT see any specific mention of fixes for N. That's disappointing. >> >> But I saw numerous updates. Anytime there is a kernel upgrade, its >> relevent, >> in my opinion. >> But posted from Mikrotik... >> >> What's new in 5.0beta1 (2010-Mar-31 10:36): >> >> *) updated drivers and kernel (to linux-2.6.32.5); >> *) ssh is now completely rewritten (supports connection forwarding, only >> DSA >> keys); >> *) added support for SSTP protocol (PPP over TLS); >> *) added support for multiple Intel Ethernet cards; >> *) added support for IPv6 over PPP >>(enabled by default if ipv6 package is installed), >>link-local addresses are assigned, and server can issue IPv6 global >> prefixes >>to clients per ppp secret or RADIUS reply (Framed-IPv6-Prefix); >> *) added proper support for MPLS over PPP (by default it is now >> disabled); >> *) fixed RB800 temperature; >> *) silentboot feature updated; >> *) WinBox - any file dropped on WinBox will be uploaded to router; >> *) multicast - fixed possible crash during PIM startup; >> *) report platform name in "/sysrem resource"; >> *) fixed problem - vlans were not working on RB750 ether1; >> *) fixed mac address handling on RB750, some specific arp requests did >> not >> work; >> *) more than two dns servers allowed in /ip dns; >> *) sniffer and torch could process packet from other interfaces; >> *) ospf - fixed DR and BDR election; >> *) ospf - changed "/routing ospf route" to show type 2 metric instead of >> internal metric for type 2 external routes; >> *) added IPv6 support to trafflow (v9 only); >> *) rewritten user-manager (formerly known as userman-test); >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Randy Cosby" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >> >> >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> >>> >>> RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how >>> far >>> Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any wirelessN fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable fixes.) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Parr" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > > >> Did you do a throughput comparison? >> >> > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ --
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Are you suggesting they might not always fess up, but sneak the fix in :-) I'll probably test it again in a few days, just in case. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > One thing I have learned over the years with Mikrotik... they often make > many other "changes" that they don't specifically list in their text > document. > > Travis > Microserv > > Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Misread >> >> I did NOT see any specific mention of fixes for N. That's disappointing. >> >> But I saw numerous updates. Anytime there is a kernel upgrade, its >> relevent, >> in my opinion. >> But posted from Mikrotik... >> >> What's new in 5.0beta1 (2010-Mar-31 10:36): >> >> *) updated drivers and kernel (to linux-2.6.32.5); >> *) ssh is now completely rewritten (supports connection forwarding, only >> DSA >> keys); >> *) added support for SSTP protocol (PPP over TLS); >> *) added support for multiple Intel Ethernet cards; >> *) added support for IPv6 over PPP >>(enabled by default if ipv6 package is installed), >>link-local addresses are assigned, and server can issue IPv6 global >> prefixes >>to clients per ppp secret or RADIUS reply (Framed-IPv6-Prefix); >> *) added proper support for MPLS over PPP (by default it is now >> disabled); >> *) fixed RB800 temperature; >> *) silentboot feature updated; >> *) WinBox - any file dropped on WinBox will be uploaded to router; >> *) multicast - fixed possible crash during PIM startup; >> *) report platform name in "/sysrem resource"; >> *) fixed problem - vlans were not working on RB750 ether1; >> *) fixed mac address handling on RB750, some specific arp requests did >> not >> work; >> *) more than two dns servers allowed in /ip dns; >> *) sniffer and torch could process packet from other interfaces; >> *) ospf - fixed DR and BDR election; >> *) ospf - changed "/routing ospf route" to show type 2 metric instead of >> internal metric for type 2 external routes; >> *) added IPv6 support to trafflow (v9 only); >> *) rewritten user-manager (formerly known as userman-test); >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Randy Cosby" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >> >> >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> >>> >>> RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how >>> far >>> Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any wirelessN fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable fixes.) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Parr" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > > >> Did you do a throughput comparison? >> >> > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/ >>> -- >>> Randy Cosby >>> Vice President >>> InfoWest, Inc >>> >>> 435-674-0165 x 2010 >>> >>> http://www.infowest.com/ >>> >>> "Letting off steam always produces more heat than light." - Neal A. >>> Maxwell >>> >>> >>> >>>
Re: [WISPA] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
Hi, Let's keep it simple and easy. With Canopy your system can scale infinitely (due to GPS sync) and latency is always very low and consistent (less than 10ms). With UBNT, you can build a system much cheaper, and one that will probably work in a small, rural area. However, it does not scale. So, the question you have to ask is: Will your network ever grow to the size that you run out of channels? On a single tower, there are roughly six legal channels in the 5.8ghz band (using 20mhz channel size). None of the other channels are legal with UBNT gear. So you have 6 channels to use for your entire network, and you can't co-locate near adjacent channels, and you can't have two AP's on different towers facing each other on the same channel. The problem we made on our network was trying to use Mikrotik for PtMP deployments and discovering that it doesn't scale. We ended up having to go to every customer we had installed on two big towers and change them out to Canopy. So we had to roll a truck twice. :( Travis Microserv Glenn Kelley wrote: > In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may > help. > > > > 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment > > 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an > issue vs the # of customers you have? > ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week > then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) > > 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is > equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity > radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... > so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in > that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity > users ... > > > > Moto Users - do you have this info as well: > > Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is > actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would > be most beneficial for sure. > > Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service > calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. > > Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as > client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much > easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be great. > > > Thanks > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Man is that true or what. Not sure if it's intentional or just an unknown/unforeseen side effect. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: > One thing I have learned over the years with Mikrotik... they often make > many other "changes" that they don't specifically list in their text > document. > > Travis > Microserv > > Tom DeReggi wrote: > > Misread > > > > I did NOT see any specific mention of fixes for N. That's disappointing. > > > > But I saw numerous updates. Anytime there is a kernel upgrade, its > relevent, > > in my opinion. > > But posted from Mikrotik... > > > > What's new in 5.0beta1 (2010-Mar-31 10:36): > > > > *) updated drivers and kernel (to linux-2.6.32.5); > > *) ssh is now completely rewritten (supports connection forwarding, only > DSA > > keys); > > *) added support for SSTP protocol (PPP over TLS); > > *) added support for multiple Intel Ethernet cards; > > *) added support for IPv6 over PPP > >(enabled by default if ipv6 package is installed), > >link-local addresses are assigned, and server can issue IPv6 global > > prefixes > >to clients per ppp secret or RADIUS reply (Framed-IPv6-Prefix); > > *) added proper support for MPLS over PPP (by default it is now > disabled); > > *) fixed RB800 temperature; > > *) silentboot feature updated; > > *) WinBox - any file dropped on WinBox will be uploaded to router; > > *) multicast - fixed possible crash during PIM startup; > > *) report platform name in "/sysrem resource"; > > *) fixed problem - vlans were not working on RB750 ether1; > > *) fixed mac address handling on RB750, some specific arp requests did > not > > work; > > *) more than two dns servers allowed in /ip dns; > > *) sniffer and torch could process packet from other interfaces; > > *) ospf - fixed DR and BDR election; > > *) ospf - changed "/routing ospf route" to show type 2 metric instead of > > internal metric for type 2 external routes; > > *) added IPv6 support to trafflow (v9 only); > > *) rewritten user-manager (formerly known as userman-test); > > > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Randy Cosby" > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > > > > > > > >> Tom, > >> > >> What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? > >> > >> Randy > >> > >> > >> > >> RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how > far > >> > >>> Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. > >>> (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any > >>> wirelessN > >>> fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable > >>> fixes.) > >>> > >>> Tom DeReggi > >>> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >>> > >>> > >>> - Original Message - > >>> From: "Jeremy Parr" > >>> To: "WISPA General List" > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > > > > Did you do a throughput comparison? > > > > > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > >>> 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/ > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Randy Cosby > >> Vice President > >> InfoWest, Inc > >> > >> 435-674-0165 x 2010 > >> > >> http://www.infowest.com/ > >> > >> "Letting off steam always produces more heat
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
One thing I have learned over the years with Mikrotik... they often make many other "changes" that they don't specifically list in their text document. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: > Misread > > I did NOT see any specific mention of fixes for N. That's disappointing. > > But I saw numerous updates. Anytime there is a kernel upgrade, its relevent, > in my opinion. > But posted from Mikrotik... > > What's new in 5.0beta1 (2010-Mar-31 10:36): > > *) updated drivers and kernel (to linux-2.6.32.5); > *) ssh is now completely rewritten (supports connection forwarding, only DSA > keys); > *) added support for SSTP protocol (PPP over TLS); > *) added support for multiple Intel Ethernet cards; > *) added support for IPv6 over PPP >(enabled by default if ipv6 package is installed), >link-local addresses are assigned, and server can issue IPv6 global > prefixes >to clients per ppp secret or RADIUS reply (Framed-IPv6-Prefix); > *) added proper support for MPLS over PPP (by default it is now disabled); > *) fixed RB800 temperature; > *) silentboot feature updated; > *) WinBox - any file dropped on WinBox will be uploaded to router; > *) multicast - fixed possible crash during PIM startup; > *) report platform name in "/sysrem resource"; > *) fixed problem - vlans were not working on RB750 ether1; > *) fixed mac address handling on RB750, some specific arp requests did not > work; > *) more than two dns servers allowed in /ip dns; > *) sniffer and torch could process packet from other interfaces; > *) ospf - fixed DR and BDR election; > *) ospf - changed "/routing ospf route" to show type 2 metric instead of > internal metric for type 2 external routes; > *) added IPv6 support to trafflow (v9 only); > *) rewritten user-manager (formerly known as userman-test); > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Randy Cosby" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > > > >> Tom, >> >> What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? >> >> Randy >> >> >> >> RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how far >> >>> Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. >>> (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any >>> wirelessN >>> fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable >>> fixes.) >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Jeremy Parr" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > Did you do a throughput comparison? > > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the market demands cheap. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! >>> 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/ >>> >>> >> -- >> Randy Cosby >> Vice President >> InfoWest, Inc >> >> 435-674-0165 x 2010 >> >> http://www.infowest.com/ >> >> "Letting off steam always produces more heat than light." - Neal A. >> Maxwell >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > http://si
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
BTW, Beta 5 was released today.. supposed to address auto ack... Faisal On 4/13/2010 8:07 PM, Michael Baird wrote: > The recently released firmware (last few days), is the first that really > works well on the station side (for P2MP), AP is still a bit broken > w/auto ack. I've not had an issue with WDS reassociations, maybe you > were using auto-ack? > > Regards > Michael Baird > >> After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we >> come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These >> seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for >> VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Well, my hats off to your NTIA friend for taking an interest. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Brian Webster" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: "WISPA General List" , nnsq...@nnsquad.org, "Telecom Regulation & the Internet" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that th
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Also Are these problems operating in a MIMO mode, or single chain/pol mode? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "can...@believewireless.net" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
> WDS re-reg issues Care to elaborate with that? We run everything bridged (WDS) with other brands. Were you running into issues using Ubiquity as both AP and SU in PtMP, or with other brand as the other? > but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. What do you attribute the latency spikes to? Do you get the latency Spikes with both the CDMA modes and the proprietary TDD imulation modes? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "can...@believewireless.net" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
Actually, both work together ... we extend our Canopy PPPoE bridged segments with Ubnt's for el-cheapo point-to-point extensions ... Sort of a Moto Canopy P2MP-to-UBnt(P)-to-UBnt(P) F. On 2010-04-13, at 8:29 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > It's not so much what you're discussing there as much as the capabilities of > the ptmp products. > > You simply can not offer the latency guarantees using Ubiquiti/802.11 that > Canopy provides. > > Now if you've got 3 people to serve I think it's financially ridiculous to > get a Canopy system involved... > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue > that counts.” > --- Winston Churchill > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: > >> In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may >> help. >> >> >> >> 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment >> >> 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an >> issue vs the # of customers you have? >> ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week >> then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) >> >> 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is >> equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity >> radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... >> so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in >> that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity >> users ... >> >> >> >> Moto Users - do you have this info as well: >> >> Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is >> actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would >> be most beneficial for sure. >> >> Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service >> calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. >> >> Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as >> client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much >> easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be great. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
It's not so much what you're discussing there as much as the capabilities of the ptmp products. You simply can not offer the latency guarantees using Ubiquiti/802.11 that Canopy provides. Now if you've got 3 people to serve I think it's financially ridiculous to get a Canopy system involved... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: > In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may > help. > > > > 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment > > 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an > issue vs the # of customers you have? > ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week > then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) > > 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is > equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity > radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... > so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in > that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity > users ... > > > > Moto Users - do you have this info as well: > > Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is > actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would > be most beneficial for sure. > > Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service > calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. > > Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as > client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much > easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be great. > > > Thanks > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Big brother (my friend at the NTIA) should be subscribed to this list now :-) Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Bailey Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: "WISPA General List" , nnsq...@nnsquad.org, "Telecom Regulation & the Internet" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails with detailed explanations of the program's purposes and benefits to providers, an intell
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti made no points today
Hmm Interesting.. My first Airgird , I assembled it wrong, I put the Radio in the center at 90deg of what it should have been, and was not able to see any signal from the Rocket M5's. It had an accident, fell flat on it's face on concrete and broke the Radio.. The 2nd Airgrid I tested was the smaller one, that was able to see the signal from the Rocket M5, but was very very sensitive to allignment... We were testing at 8.8 miles... Also tested the Nanobridge very sensitive and difficult to align, very narrow beamwidth... We don't have a clean LOS on this link (we do have two Rocket M5's working with 2ft Dishes, working very well...), however the Nanobridge could hear the Rocket M5 w/ 16db 90deg (smaller sector), but the Pannel was having trouble hearing the NanoBridge... For testing, I switched to the lower band and turned up the power, and was able to establish a link... since we were testing, I did not leave it up...plus chalked off poor link in the normal 5.8 band due to not a clean LOS and interference... Need to do some more testing at a 2-4 mile link to get some conclusive answers. Some of the folks on the UBNT list have reported the NanoBridge they recieved working on lower band but not working properly on the higher side of the band... I would suggest that you do some testing at distance greater than inside the office to something less than 4 miles... to get an idea of what exactly is going on The btw, the board inside the Airgird is the same board as what is inside the Bullet M... Faisal -- Original Message -- From: Forbes Mercy Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:01:21 -0700 >After falling in like with the Rocket M Nano's the Rocket M Bullets and >the Mimos I have to say I'm firmly unimpressed with the integrated >antenna series. We bought a pack of 10 of the 27dbi grids, not one of >them would associate to our Mimos yet a bullet and in some cases, where >distance wasn't a factor, the Nano Rockets did so without a problem. We >just took delivery on the Nano Dish units, we wanted them to do some >short range backhauls. > >Today was our first, replacing a 10MB Motorola backhaul at 5.2 miles, we >set up the new dishes up in the office WDS on, WPA on they connected at >-50 (as they should in the office), connection firm all night. >Installed them today, the AP working well we headed up the mountain to >install the other one. It would not see or connect to the other Nano >Dish no matter whether we used the lower powered 5.2 or the more >generous 5.7/8 frequency range. Gradually turning off the WDS, then the >WPA, then making it 20 MHZ, finally we gave up and the unnecessary >beating to my bucket truck that had to climb that mountain left me in a >pretty foul mood over the new gear. I'm about to RMA all of it and go >back to just bullets and Rockets. > >Forbes > > > >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubnt vs Moto vs ... your brand
In trying to make the right buying decision - some simple answers may help. 1. What is the meantime failure rate for your ubiquity equipment 2. What is the avg amount of truck rolls per week you run to fix an issue vs the # of customers you have? ie- if you have say 1500 clients and do 8 troubleshooting calls a week then it would be 1500/8 = .0053% ) 3. how often does a tech call come in (w/o a truck roll) that is equipment related... For some reason I think some of the ubiquity radios just need a power cycle and voila - they behave much better... so - what is the average # of calls per total clients that come in that are fixed w/ simple methods vs a truck roll for the ubiquity users ... Moto Users - do you have this info as well: Reason I ask is because I am wondering - if the cost of Moto is actually worth it... as a smaller operator - this information would be most beneficial for sure. Buying a Moto radio - even if 2 or 3 times the $$ if - the service calls on the back side are much less - might be worth it. Perhaps the cost of Radio vs People (both in manpower as well as client satisfaction for uptime) make the buying decision much easier... but having some numbers to go along with this would be great. Thanks WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
On 04/13/2010 06:50 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: > Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in > Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that > the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some > of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from > WISPs.Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of > the solution is the first step to getting better results. > Matt...excellent letter...very professional et al. Leon WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
have you worked w/ ubiquity for any troubleshooting? been pretty happy here w/ them ... just wondering I love moto - but just so blessed expensive... I am wondering if they are really worth the $$$ So as not to hijack your thread - I will post this question in a new thread... On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
The recently released firmware (last few days), is the first that really works well on the station side (for P2MP), AP is still a bit broken w/auto ack. I've not had an issue with WDS reassociations, maybe you were using auto-ack? Regards Michael Baird > After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we > come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These > seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for > VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
what are the rates on the 430? are they not up around 10K ? On Apr 13, 2010, at 8:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net wrote: > Canopy 430 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti made no points today
After falling in like with the Rocket M Nano's the Rocket M Bullets and the Mimos I have to say I'm firmly unimpressed with the integrated antenna series. We bought a pack of 10 of the 27dbi grids, not one of them would associate to our Mimos yet a bullet and in some cases, where distance wasn't a factor, the Nano Rockets did so without a problem. We just took delivery on the Nano Dish units, we wanted them to do some short range backhauls. Today was our first, replacing a 10MB Motorola backhaul at 5.2 miles, we set up the new dishes up in the office WDS on, WPA on they connected at -50 (as they should in the office), connection firm all night. Installed them today, the AP working well we headed up the mountain to install the other one. It would not see or connect to the other Nano Dish no matter whether we used the lower powered 5.2 or the more generous 5.7/8 frequency range. Gradually turning off the WDS, then the WPA, then making it 20 MHZ, finally we gave up and the unnecessary beating to my bucket truck that had to climb that mountain left me in a pretty foul mood over the new gear. I'm about to RMA all of it and go back to just bullets and Rockets. Forbes WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for VoIP or anything that can't handle latency spikes. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Misread I did NOT see any specific mention of fixes for N. That's disappointing. But I saw numerous updates. Anytime there is a kernel upgrade, its relevent, in my opinion. But posted from Mikrotik... What's new in 5.0beta1 (2010-Mar-31 10:36): *) updated drivers and kernel (to linux-2.6.32.5); *) ssh is now completely rewritten (supports connection forwarding, only DSA keys); *) added support for SSTP protocol (PPP over TLS); *) added support for multiple Intel Ethernet cards; *) added support for IPv6 over PPP (enabled by default if ipv6 package is installed), link-local addresses are assigned, and server can issue IPv6 global prefixes to clients per ppp secret or RADIUS reply (Framed-IPv6-Prefix); *) added proper support for MPLS over PPP (by default it is now disabled); *) fixed RB800 temperature; *) silentboot feature updated; *) WinBox - any file dropped on WinBox will be uploaded to router; *) multicast - fixed possible crash during PIM startup; *) report platform name in "/sysrem resource"; *) fixed problem - vlans were not working on RB750 ether1; *) fixed mac address handling on RB750, some specific arp requests did not work; *) more than two dns servers allowed in /ip dns; *) sniffer and torch could process packet from other interfaces; *) ospf - fixed DR and BDR election; *) ospf - changed "/routing ospf route" to show type 2 metric instead of internal metric for type 2 external routes; *) added IPv6 support to trafflow (v9 only); *) rewritten user-manager (formerly known as userman-test); Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Randy Cosby" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > Tom, > > What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? > > Randy > > > > RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how far >> Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. >> (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any >> wirelessN >> fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable >> fixes.) >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jeremy Parr" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >> >> >> >>> On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >>> Did you do a throughput comparison? >>> It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not >>> fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point >>> was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ >>> years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today >>> that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the >>> market demands cheap. >>> >>> >>> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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/ >> > > -- > Randy Cosby > Vice President > InfoWest, Inc > > 435-674-0165 x 2010 > > http://www.infowest.com/ > > "Letting off steam always produces more heat than light." - Neal A. > Maxwell > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Big Brother is listening...S! lol:) --- On Tue, 4/13/10, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: From: Matt Larsen - Lists Subject: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup To: "WISPA General List" , nnsq...@nnsquad.org, "Telecom Regulation & the Internet" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 6:50 PM Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs. Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails with detailed explanations of the program's purposes and benefits to providers, an intelligently designed website with progress reports and followup phone calls to the providers who have not returned the information would go over much better. WISPs have not been required to collect this information up to this point and there is no mandate for its collection, so it makes sense to build up a positive relationship rather
[WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup
Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from WISPs.Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of the solution is the first step to getting better results. Here is a copy of the email that I sent to the Nebraska PSC today with my followup comments. Other commentary and discussion regarding this is available at Wireless Cowboys http://www.wirelesscowboys.com/ Matt Larsen vistabeam.com I am writing with further comments and concerns about the Nebraska Broadband Mapping Initiative. After participating in the conference call about the mapping program yesterday, I was left with several concerns. My first concern is about the accuracy of the data that will be collected. The number of providers that have not responded to the NDA request and/or the data request is very high, and that means that there will be substantial inaccuracies in the final dataset that will make the final results of the project flawed. A dataset that only includes 20-50% of the total data needed could lead to policy decisions that could have an adverse affect on the smaller providers that cover otherwise unserved areas by encouraging government supported overbuilds. This would be wasteful of taxpayer money and could put many of the smaller providers out of business, causing a net loss of jobs and the loss of broadband service to customers of those smaller providers. It is critical that most if not all of the broadband providers in the state be represented in this project. The attitude that the state contractor appears to have is that non respondents will simply not be included. I would hope that this attitude will change to be more inclusive of the smaller, non-wireline providers who do not have the ability to generate the requested data easily. My second concern is about the data that is being requested. The data request template is asking for a lot of data that I don't feel comfortable divulging to any outside entities, including customer addresses, GPS coordinates and frequencies used on our towers and the anchor institutions that we serve. Many of the other WISPs that I work with are also not comfortable turning this information over to an outside party, even with the NDA. After several discussions with other experts in the mapping and data collection field, I have come to the conclusion that the mapping requirements would be effectively served by delivering the GIS shape files of our coverage areas along with a summary of subscribers in each census block. I have already delivered the requested shape files showing our coverage, and am working toward the census block summaries. If the data requirements could be adjusted so that this information would be suitable, I believe that you would get more response from the smaller providers. My third concern is about the cost for smaller, non-wireline providers to collect the data. While most wireline providers already have shape files and geocoding information already collected and available, many wireless providers do not have this information readily available and do not have the tools or technical knowledge to get this information collected within the requested time frame. Committing man hours to do this in-house or bring in outside assistance places an undue financial burden on providers that are often self-funded and would prefer to invest that money into their networks. The grant was given to the PSC, not the providers, and yet we are being asked to spend our time and money to get this information together. Coming up with a way to help provide the manpower and financial assistance necessary to collect this information would provide a win-win situation for the providers and the PSC and increase the amount of data collected. Finally, I believe that more effective outreach could be established with the providers so that the comfort level is higher. Sending an email with a large data request and a short deadline for response is not going to be received well. A series of emails with detailed explanations of the program's purposes and benefits to providers, an intelligently designed website with progress reports and followup phone calls to the providers who have not returned the information would go over much better. WISPs have not been required to collect this information up to this point and there is no mandate for its collection, so it makes sense to build up a positive relationship rather than dictate what should be provided. One benefit of this process is that it is an opportunity for the Public Service Commission to build a rapport with the WISPs and gain a better understanding of their place in the broadband infrastructure while educating them about the purposes and
Re: [WISPA] Can you get an STD from Ubiquiti Equipment?
What do you mean 5 packs? Do you have to buy them in multiples of 5?! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Tony C. Loosle wrote: > It is impressive packaging. > > But why the heck is it in 5 packs? How do I make a 5 pack work in bridge > mode? Should be an even number. > > t > > > > Would you rather something get damaged in shipping? > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to > > continue that counts." --- Winston Churchill > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:24 PM, can...@believewireless.net < > > p...@believewireless.net> wrote: > > > >> Do they really need to wrap every, single part?!?!?!? Two > >> packages of screws are wrapped and place in another > >> bag that also holds the mounting clamps. RocketDishes have the > >> large bolts covered and wrapped, placed in plastic and zip tied. > >> > >> I've seen food with less "sanitary" methods. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Can you get an STD from Ubiquiti Equipment?
It is impressive packaging. But why the heck is it in 5 packs? How do I make a 5 pack work in bridge mode? Should be an even number. t > Would you rather something get damaged in shipping? > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to > continue that counts." --- Winston Churchill > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:24 PM, can...@believewireless.net < > p...@believewireless.net> wrote: > >> Do they really need to wrap every, single part?!?!?!? Two >> packages of screws are wrapped and place in another >> bag that also holds the mounting clamps. RocketDishes have the >> large bolts covered and wrapped, placed in plastic and zip tied. >> >> I've seen food with less "sanitary" methods. >> >> >> -- >> -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Can you get an STD from Ubiquiti Equipment?
Would you rather something get damaged in shipping? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:24 PM, can...@believewireless.net < p...@believewireless.net> wrote: > Do they really need to wrap every, single part?!?!?!? Two packages of > screws are wrapped and place in another > bag that also holds the mounting clamps. RocketDishes have the large > bolts covered and wrapped, placed in > plastic and zip tied. > > I've seen food with less "sanitary" methods. > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Can you get an STD from Ubiquiti Equipment?
Do they really need to wrap every, single part?!?!?!? Two packages of screws are wrapped and place in another bag that also holds the mounting clamps. RocketDishes have the large bolts covered and wrapped, placed in plastic and zip tied. I've seen food with less "sanitary" methods. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquity VLAN Capability
I doubt Nano2s do layer 2 VLAN tagging but I don't have the experience to talk that in-depth about it. There is probably a backdoor way (like Faisal talked about) but I would just suggest a layer2/3 device that does it by port behind the AP. You can find them pretty inexpensively. -Jeff Convergence Technologies "There is a difference" -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity VLAN Capability I was going to say the same, so I will add, I put MT's behind UBNT's to handle the IP layer. I let the UBNT hardware do the RF layer, which they do pretty well. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > The Nano's run Openwrt under the hood. The only thing proprietary on > them is the 'radio driver'. > you can download the SDK kit and do mods, such as adding ospf or oslr or > even quagga. > > There are a number of folks who have posted how to recipes on the UBNT > forums on vlans and multiple ssid's etc. This is all via the command > line interface (ssh or telnet). > > I am making the assumption that you want the NANO to be Vlan Aware on > the radio. and not talking about just passing multiple VLAN's from a > Switch and using the Nano as a pass thru bridge ? (pass thru > functionality is there in the standard unit as long as you are > using the AP & CPE in the WDS mode). > > Faisal > > On 4/13/2010 2:42 PM, Tracy Tippett wrote: >> Has anyone had experience getting the Nano products to support multiple >> VLANs I looked at the forum but wasn't able to decipher a clear answer. >> Does it require a third party software patch? >> >> Tracy Tippett >> >> --Original Mail-- >> From: "Jeremy Parr" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:26:15 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >> >> On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >> >>> Did you do a throughput comparison? >>> >> It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not >> fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point >> was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ >> years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today >> that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the >> market demands cheap. >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Tom, What fixes have you seen in 5 for Wireless-N? Or did I mis-read this? Randy RandyAnd they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how far > Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. > (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any wirelessN > fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable fixes.) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL& Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeremy Parr" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > > > >> On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >> >>> Did you do a throughput comparison? >>> >> It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not >> fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point >> was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ >> years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today >> that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the >> market demands cheap. >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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/ > -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc 435-674-0165 x 2010 http://www.infowest.com/ "Letting off steam always produces more heat than light." - Neal A. Maxwell WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
I look at it a different way... Ubiquiti has been a disruptive force to set a new base level standard for expectations. Any new product is going to lack features and possibly reliabilty as bugs get discovered. But Ubiquiti established that in today world, it is possible to deliver $100 radios, with "core foundation" features (Mimo, Bridinging, Analyzers, TDD-like, Tri-band, Etc). Features missing can be added, as long as the Core Foundation of the product is not limiting. What I dont understand is how a company (Proxim) that already had so many OS features developed (and intellectual property owned), could not progress faster than Ubiquiti to deliver such a Visionary product? I do not mean to Bash Proxim here. There are many good people at Proxim, many early visionaries, and also a sturdy product lines. But what Ubiquiti has done is somewhat unique. Maybe part of the answer is "open Source", that Ubiquiti could hit the ground running, leveraging what was already out there? Maybe part of it is that they entered the game later, after others already incurred the R&D costs to pioneer concepts, for Ubiquiti to learn from? But at the end of the day, what is exciting is what Ubiquiti has delivered. I really have to respect what they've accomplished. I dont agree that the industry demands cheap. Historically, I personally have never been a fan of plastic and $99 APs. But Ubiquiti is showing that an amazing product can be delivered inexpensively, and that is exciting. And they are not the only ones For example, I'm amazed at how far Mikrotik has come, considering feature rich for the dollar. (Note: MIkrotik released new Firmware, a 5 vers, does not list any wirelessN fixes, but it looked like it added a couple relevent and desirable fixes.) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Parr" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >> Did you do a throughput comparison? > > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquity VLAN Capability
I was going to say the same, so I will add, I put MT's behind UBNT's to handle the IP layer. I let the UBNT hardware do the RF layer, which they do pretty well. On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > The Nano's run Openwrt under the hood. The only thing proprietary on > them is the 'radio driver'. > you can download the SDK kit and do mods, such as adding ospf or oslr or > even quagga. > > There are a number of folks who have posted how to recipes on the UBNT > forums on vlans and multiple ssid's etc. This is all via the command > line interface (ssh or telnet). > > I am making the assumption that you want the NANO to be Vlan Aware on > the radio. and not talking about just passing multiple VLAN's from a > Switch and using the Nano as a pass thru bridge ? (pass thru > functionality is there in the standard unit as long as you are > using the AP & CPE in the WDS mode). > > Faisal > > On 4/13/2010 2:42 PM, Tracy Tippett wrote: >> Has anyone had experience getting the Nano products to support multiple >> VLANs I looked at the forum but wasn't able to decipher a clear answer. >> Does it require a third party software patch? >> >> Tracy Tippett >> >> --Original Mail-- >> From: "Jeremy Parr" >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:26:15 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison >> >> On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >> >>> Did you do a throughput comparison? >>> >> It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not >> fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point >> was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ >> years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today >> that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the >> market demands cheap. >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! >> 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Yeah, funny, does not look like we are making much progress after 18 years does it. But we could compare on different criteria, and add Proxim's current generation. That is Just for Fun... --AP1000 UbiquitiTsunami MP11a Speed 3mbps 30-100mbps?equivellent per channel. AP Cost $700 $90Still High Interoperabilty Proprietary Standards Still proprietary Life Span:DiscontinuedFuture Availabilty Still Available Yearly Fee: Paid updates Free Updates Unknown SpectrumAnalyzer NoYes.Still NO CPE Limit16-48 UnlimitedStill 16-48, I think. CPE PolN/A Dual/Any Pol Still some CPE models Verticle Only. There has not been much talk about Proxim's MP11A this year. But the product is still out there, and capable. What is really the big difference between Ubiquiti and Proxim? And why is Ubiquiti getting so much attention this year? I'm going to argue that its "mentality" not "technology". It is mentality of some that hold back this industry, and it is mentality of others that is allowing this industry to progress. Ubiquiti's mentality is what is exciting to me. They appear to have a very compelling and exciting vision for our industry. We are seeing it by the "price" they offer without withholding features. We are seeing it with creative design of radio models, for example, as bundling Grid antenna with CPE. We see it with embracing the latest antenna trends, embracing Dual Pol, something that been almost ignored the last 20 years (by everyone but Trango). (This is super rlevent considering Dual POl sectors used to be $1200 and now Ubiquiti delivers them sub $170) We see it with effort to meet client's demands, for example, developing Spectrum Analyzer Software on standard Chipsets within 6 months of the time Clients started demanding they needed it for Ubiquiti to be successful for WISPs, which is a major feat considering so many others have failed to accomplish the same thing over the last 10 years, no matter how much it was discussed. Whats important to note is how quickly they are progressing. Ubiquiti may not be the God of Wireless, "yet", but at the rate they are progressing.. they could be. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Parr" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:49 AM Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > Just for fun > > AP1000 Ubiqiuti > KN TurboCellAirOS > 1992 2009 > > Polling MAC Yes Yes > Radius MAC Auth Yes No > Metal Enclosure Yes No > Rugged RF connectors No No > Modular Wirless Interfaces Yes No > Per Client RF Stats Yes No > Complete SNMP MIBs Yes No > > > We've come a long way? > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquity VLAN Capability
The Nano's run Openwrt under the hood. The only thing proprietary on them is the 'radio driver'. you can download the SDK kit and do mods, such as adding ospf or oslr or even quagga. There are a number of folks who have posted how to recipes on the UBNT forums on vlans and multiple ssid's etc. This is all via the command line interface (ssh or telnet). I am making the assumption that you want the NANO to be Vlan Aware on the radio. and not talking about just passing multiple VLAN's from a Switch and using the Nano as a pass thru bridge ? (pass thru functionality is there in the standard unit as long as you are using the AP & CPE in the WDS mode). Faisal On 4/13/2010 2:42 PM, Tracy Tippett wrote: > Has anyone had experience getting the Nano products to support multiple VLANs > I looked at the forum but wasn't able to decipher a clear answer. Does it > require a third party software patch? > > Tracy Tippett > > --Original Mail-- > From: "Jeremy Parr" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:26:15 -0400 > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > >> Did you do a throughput comparison? >> > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Beta vs VHS, MAC vs PC, Cadillac vs Hyundai, Sacks5thAve vs Walmart, Gas vs Electric... On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote: > On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: >> Did you do a throughput comparison? > > It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not > fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point > was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ > years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today > that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the > market demands cheap. > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquity VLAN Capability
Has anyone had experience getting the Nano products to support multiple VLANs I looked at the forum but wasn't able to decipher a clear answer. Does it require a third party software patch? Tracy Tippett --Original Mail-- From: "Jeremy Parr" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:26:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > Did you do a throughput comparison? It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the market demands cheap. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
On 13 April 2010 11:52, MDK wrote: > Did you do a throughput comparison? It was mostly a joke, but I'll bite. A throughput comparison is not fair, since they both just leverage someone else's chipset. My point was simply that if a low end wifi based product had these features 10+ years ago, why the hell does UBNT see fit to release something today that is shiny and fast, but lacking core functionality. I guess the market demands cheap. WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
And a price comparison? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of MDK Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison Did you do a throughput comparison? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: "Jeremy Parr" Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:49 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > Just for fun > > AP1000 Ubiqiuti > KN TurboCellAirOS > 1992 2009 > > Polling MAC Yes Yes > Radius MAC Auth Yes No > Metal Enclosure Yes No > Rugged RF connectors No No > Modular Wirless Interfaces Yes No > Per Client RF Stats Yes No > Complete SNMP MIBs Yes No > > > We've come a long way? > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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 Wants You! Join today! 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] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Did you do a throughput comparison? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: "Jeremy Parr" Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:49 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison > Just for fun > > AP1000 Ubiqiuti > KN TurboCellAirOS > 1992 2009 > > Polling MAC Yes Yes > Radius MAC Auth Yes No > Metal Enclosure Yes No > Rugged RF connectors No No > Modular Wirless Interfaces Yes No > Per Client RF Stats Yes No > Complete SNMP MIBs Yes No > > > We've come a long way? > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > 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 Wants You! Join today! 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/
