Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
> MicroTik says they have a meshing protocol, HWMPplus, that provides > Layer 2 (this is critical; we're not building a Layer 3 network, and > with this many hops, latency and loss are critical) dynamic meshing, > essentially applying a routing protocol (smarter than bridge STPs) > among nodes. Have you looked at batman-adv on OpenWRT? http://www.open-mesh.net/wiki/batman-adv 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] regional show
I finally got my registration done. So who else is going? I'm really looking forward to seeing/meeting folks there! 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] Happy Father's Day.
Thanks Faisal! Same to you (if you're a Dad). Also, same to the sll for the Fathers on this list. -RickG On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > To all the Dad's out there .. > > Well Wishes for a Great & Happy Fathers Day . > > Regards > > -- > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet& Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, Fl 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net > > > > > 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] Happy Father's Day.
Yep. A great day stringing cable out in the hot sun. Rotten kids. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:22 PM To: WISPA General List; memb...@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Happy Father's Day. To all the Dad's out there .. Well Wishes for a Great & Happy Fathers Day . Regards -- Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net 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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
At 6/20/2010 04:10 PM, Clint Ricker wrote: >Inline >... >My opinion is that the major work that is done on routing / network >hardware by the companies with deep pockets is also done for companies >with deep pockets. So, what you get is stuff designed to solve >"national" problems, not "small town needs Internet", and then, if >needed, is just scaled down--with varying degrees of success. You're giving them too much credit. The IETF/Cisco world is going down ratholes, spinning wheels, getting nowhere. LISP? Gimme a break... it didn't even get the IETF blessing but Cisco's pushing it. IP is dead and they just don't know it. It still carries traffic, of course, but the zombie's corpse is starting to smell. And you're absolutely right that the big players don't care about little guys like WISPs. But you guys don't buy CSRs and 7600s. >It's >not just a matter of wireless running 10 years behind >wireline--wireless really doesn't have anyone with deep pockets >addressing these sorts of issues. Large-scale mesh from hard-core >networking companies doesn't exist: the major service providers that >do wireless pretty much all universally backhaul over wireline and >avoid these issues. Right. They service the large, easy, well-heeled markets. They leave the tough, but smaller-volume, jobs to others. >Unless the trajectory changes, I'd say that these >issues aren't on a path to ever being solved, let alone inside of 10 >years ;). So, it's probably a matter of roll your own or push back on >the wireless vendors (Ubiquiti, Mikrotek), although I'm sure that they >run on ridiculously thin margins and would need enough of a coalition >to convince them that they could see any ROI by bringing this to >maturity; it's also complicated by the fact that a lot of the vendors >core expertise is RF, not IP. To be sure, one of the advantages of the MT Routerboards is that they'll run third-party code. And Vyatta, etc., but not the big guys. There is some startup activity I'm involved in that may address some of these issues. Hence sticking to layer 2 for now, since IP is part of the problem, not the solution. >For what it's worth Fred, I somewhat disagreed with your assertion of >"IP is just another layer two protocol" that made in a previous post. >In the end, the power of IP is in its hierarchical nature which lets >you summarize, which is critical to the amount of processing that it >takes to process network decisions on a network of non-trivial size. IP is a big bucket of fail, which we are so used to using that we don't even look. Think naked emperor. It doesn't summarize well. This is one of the things that I did in RSPF, btw -- it did "level 1 routing", meaning SPF routing within the "subnet", which became in RSPF a "node group" since "subnet" implied the IETF norms. Not my idea, btw -- I just adapted it from DECnet! And RSPF addressed nodes, not interfaces. Boy did that get the IP Fundamentalists upset. They worship IP's bugs without knowing why they're there. Yes, I do know the origin of interface addressing, and why the IP address is inside FTP. My article "Moving Beyond TCP/IP" (see my web site or the Pouzin Society's) explains it. Sort of like Google's "spec" for VP8, which in parts just gives reference Unix code, which has known old bugs that were in VP3. >That said, as long as you route, not bridge customers onto your mesh >network, then the mesh network itself will remain small enough that >layer two is perfectly reasonable. If you do HMWPplus, then I'd >assume that you'd at some point need to scale by splitting mesh into >multiple meshes; OLSRD is probably going to handle a large number of >nodes more gracefully. However, as has been pointed out, having >link-quality information as part of the routing decision is critical >and, in the end, it is a lot more elegant to put that on layer two >than on layer 3 like OLSRD does. The idea here is that the local mesh (a rural county-scale service area) will be one domain; other areas will be separate meshes, with separate injection points. So it's dozens, but not hundreds, of nodes. And thus it will look fully connected at the IP layer, which IP wants, for the IP traffic. >You nailed a fundamental problem which is the lack of any sort of >carrier / metro Ethernet style setup. For most traditional wireline >vendors in this space, there are two basic components to making this >work--classes of services / QOS (router side) and then the >provisioning system which actually knows what's provisioned and what >the remaining capacity on various spans is. The missing piece in >this puzzle for wireless is the provisioning system, although the >algorithms for doing route/bandwidth capacity calculations in a >many-to-many mesh architecture are non-trivial to develop, to say the >least. If you limited yourself to a ring-architecture, it would be >much more doable. Well, rings per se are not flexible enough; a more comp
Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
Inline On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >>You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about >>that :) > > Thanks. :-) > >>Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:- >> >>The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line >>world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world >>used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the >>Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 >>years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from >>TDM ...(speaking loosely). >> >>In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, >>have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... >>performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power >>consumption, etc etc... > > It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few > zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a > node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the > like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small > clusters, like <50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is > to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or > hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the > country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of > an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service > beyond dial tone. > > In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost > alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is > that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the > ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... > My opinion is that the major work that is done on routing / network hardware by the companies with deep pockets is also done for companies with deep pockets. So, what you get is stuff designed to solve "national" problems, not "small town needs Internet", and then, if needed, is just scaled down--with varying degrees of success. It's not just a matter of wireless running 10 years behind wireline--wireless really doesn't have anyone with deep pockets addressing these sorts of issues. Large-scale mesh from hard-core networking companies doesn't exist: the major service providers that do wireless pretty much all universally backhaul over wireline and avoid these issues. Unless the trajectory changes, I'd say that these issues aren't on a path to ever being solved, let alone inside of 10 years ;). So, it's probably a matter of roll your own or push back on the wireless vendors (Ubiquiti, Mikrotek), although I'm sure that they run on ridiculously thin margins and would need enough of a coalition to convince them that they could see any ROI by bringing this to maturity; it's also complicated by the fact that a lot of the vendors core expertise is RF, not IP. For what it's worth Fred, I somewhat disagreed with your assertion of "IP is just another layer two protocol" that made in a previous post. In the end, the power of IP is in its hierarchical nature which lets you summarize, which is critical to the amount of processing that it takes to process network decisions on a network of non-trivial size. That said, as long as you route, not bridge customers onto your mesh network, then the mesh network itself will remain small enough that layer two is perfectly reasonable. If you do HMWPplus, then I'd assume that you'd at some point need to scale by splitting mesh into multiple meshes; OLSRD is probably going to handle a large number of nodes more gracefully. However, as has been pointed out, having link-quality information as part of the routing decision is critical and, in the end, it is a lot more elegant to put that on layer two than on layer 3 like OLSRD does. You nailed a fundamental problem which is the lack of any sort of carrier / metro Ethernet style setup. For most traditional wireline vendors in this space, there are two basic components to making this work--classes of services / QOS (router side) and then the provisioning system which actually knows what's provisioned and what the remaining capacity on various spans is. The missing piece in this puzzle for wireless is the provisioning system, although the algorithms for doing route/bandwidth capacity calculations in a many-to-many mesh architecture are non-trivial to develop, to say the least. If you limited yourself to a ring-architecture, it would be much more doable. >>... >>BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most >>of the "mesh" networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline >>protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual >>problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link >>quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... >>which takes
[WISPA] Happy Father's Day.
To all the Dad's out there .. Well Wishes for a Great & Happy Fathers Day . Regards -- Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net 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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
At 6/20/2010 01:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >Fred, all these years I've known you, I had no idea you had wireless >knowledge like this. Usually those wireline guys are pretty "focused" >in their knowledge. :-p I'm terribly unfocused. Well, I started on the radio side... got my first ham ticket in the sixties, when I was 11. I got my First Phone ticket while in high school and was chief engineer of my college radio station, and got them their Class D FM license. (Much more fun than classwork.) I did some work for Frontline Wireless a couple of years ago, albeit on the backhaul planning, and have some connections now to the public safety radio community, where 700 MHz LTE is about to take off. I also did some work supporting bidders in recent spectrum auctions... mostly involving GIS analysis and license valuation. The FCC has made wireline really difficult lately, so a lot of the competitive action is on the wireless side, even if only for survival. But it's also the fun side of the business, relatively speaking; there's less fighting Ma Bell when you don't need their wires. Urban and enterprise markets still need wireline (glass, coax, or copper). Wireless is underutilized in rural areas. USF and large-area licensing policies have distorted the market. >- >Mike Hammett >Intelligent Computing Solutions >http://www.ics-il.com > > > >On 6/20/2010 11:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > > > >> You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about > >> that :) > >> > > Thanks. :-) > > > > > >> Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the > following:- > >> > >> The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line > >> world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world > >> used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the > >> Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 > >> years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from > >> TDM ...(speaking loosely). > >> > >> In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, > >> have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... > >> performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power > >> consumption, etc etc... > >> > > It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few > > zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a > > node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the > > like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small > > clusters, like<50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is > > to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or > > hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the > > country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of > > an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service > > beyond dial tone. > > > > In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost > > alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is > > that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the > > ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... > > > > > >> ... > >> BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most > >> of the "mesh" networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline > >> protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual > >> problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link > >> quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... > >> which takes link quality into account as well when making routing > >> decision.. but you are not going to find OSLR in commercial radios > >> not at the moment... > >> > > That's one reason why MicroTik's HWMPplus looked attractive. It is > > designed for wireless, and claims to take link conditions into > > account. It looks like a direct competitor for OSLR. > > > > > >> If you look at all of the folks who are delivering successful mesh > >> products, you will find them to be using 'proprietary' developed > >> mechanisms to deal with the issues..e.g. Ruckus Wireless uses it's > >> special antennas and a 'zone controller' to keep the Mesh radios in tip > >> top shape, by dynamically adjusting all of the parameters on a real > >> time basis.. > >> > >> As far as finding a multi-radio board... there are a few available best > >> to see the link to Wili Box site that I had sent in an earlier email... > >> they list out a number of mfg. for both the sbc's and the radios.. the > >> question you will have to figure out is..on what part of the 'network > >> design' ... 'ip routing ?' you will be willing to make a compromise > >> on...and you still have not addressed the question of > >> "Antennas":) after using a good working 802.11n radios with > >> MiMo Antennas... it is rather
Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
Fred, all these years I've known you, I had no idea you had wireless knowledge like this. Usually those wireline guys are pretty "focused" in their knowledge. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 6/20/2010 11:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > >> You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about >> that :) >> > Thanks. :-) > > >> Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:- >> >> The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line >> world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world >> used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the >> Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 >> years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from >> TDM ...(speaking loosely). >> >> In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, >> have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... >> performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power >> consumption, etc etc... >> > It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few > zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a > node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the > like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small > clusters, like<50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is > to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or > hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the > country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of > an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service > beyond dial tone. > > In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost > alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is > that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the > ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... > > >> ... >> BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most >> of the "mesh" networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline >> protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual >> problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link >> quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... >> which takes link quality into account as well when making routing >> decision.. but you are not going to find OSLR in commercial radios >> not at the moment... >> > That's one reason why MicroTik's HWMPplus looked attractive. It is > designed for wireless, and claims to take link conditions into > account. It looks like a direct competitor for OSLR. > > >> If you look at all of the folks who are delivering successful mesh >> products, you will find them to be using 'proprietary' developed >> mechanisms to deal with the issues..e.g. Ruckus Wireless uses it's >> special antennas and a 'zone controller' to keep the Mesh radios in tip >> top shape, by dynamically adjusting all of the parameters on a real >> time basis.. >> >> As far as finding a multi-radio board... there are a few available best >> to see the link to Wili Box site that I had sent in an earlier email... >> they list out a number of mfg. for both the sbc's and the radios.. the >> question you will have to figure out is..on what part of the 'network >> design' ... 'ip routing ?' you will be willing to make a compromise >> on...and you still have not addressed the question of >> "Antennas":) after using a good working 802.11n radios with >> MiMo Antennas... it is rather hard to go back to regular stuff... >> > I'm definitely interested in MIMO. LTE, which is starting to be > rolled out in the CMRS world and, separately, in the public safety > radio world, includes MIMO, both beamforming for range and parallel > transmission for close-in speed. If I could find a pole-top system > (mesh node) that did dynamic MIMO instead of using sectorized > antennas, it'd be a serious win. Also, 4x4 MIMO is probably coming > out soon, and at 5.8 GHz a proper 4x4 antenna is still pretty small, > and has of course a lot more gain (and interference notching) than > 2x2. WiMAX can have MIMO too (it's an option), but I haven't seen it > in the unlicensed low-cost world. > > > >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet& Telecom >> >> >> >> On 6/19/2010 8:50 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >> >>> This is one of the problems with any kind of "best efforts" routing >>> or bridging. Loss does accumulate. Of course it's the >>> single-frequency meshes where loss goes totally gaga. One of the >>> advantages of Carrier Ethernet with Q-in-Q is that CIRs can be >>> assigned to different points along the way, with reserved capacity, >>> so the near-in nodes don't hog everything. I don't think HWMPplus >>> does f
Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
I am blushing... I cannot even hold a candle to Fred For those of you who do not know Fredhe is the 'Jack Ungar' of the wireline world.. He not only know the Technical Stuff (very formally & practical implementations) but is also a respected expert in Regulatory Affairs in the CLEC world. I think it is simply awesome for Fred to join the WISPA list and participate. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet& Telecom On 6/20/2010 12:25 PM, Mike wrote: > I'd love to get Faisal and Fred in a room together and just be a fly on the > wall ... > > > Friendly Regards, > > Mike > > Mike Gilchrist > Disruptive Technologist > Advanced Wireless Express > > > > > > 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] interference from ships
At 6/20/2010 12:28 PM, you wrote: >Thar she blows! Your'e right. > >But why would they run doppler weather radar on a drill ship? Who knows? Even stranger, why run it when docked for repairs far from a drill site? But it's possible that it's there for safety, to see if there's bad weather approaching, and it's also possible that nobody knows where the on/off switch is. It's just there, like the other instrumentation. It's their primary frequency, after all, with WISPs as opportunistic unlicensed (even below secondary status) sharers. However, looking carefully at the table of allocations, 915 is a "federal" primary, not civilian, so it's not clear that a drill ship should be running that radar, if that's what it is. The rules might differ in other countries. >Greg > >On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > > At 6/20/2010 07:36 AM, Greg Ithen wrote: > >> A quick googling of "900mhz maritime radar" turned up nothing. A > >> googling of "900mhz radar" turned up a few devices for "ground > >> penetrating radar" (finding public utilities pipes and cables > under pavement). > > > > You need to look for "915 MHz", which is the center > > frequency. You'll find a lot of weather-related radar, especially > > doppler radars used for wind profiling. Different radar frequencies > > get different pieces of the weather picture. > > > > -- > > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] interference from ships
Thar she blows! Your'e right. But why would they run doppler weather radar on a drill ship? Greg On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 6/20/2010 07:36 AM, Greg Ithen wrote: >> A quick googling of "900mhz maritime radar" turned up nothing. A >> googling of "900mhz radar" turned up a few devices for "ground >> penetrating radar" (finding public utilities pipes and cables under >> pavement). > > You need to look for "915 MHz", which is the center > frequency. You'll find a lot of weather-related radar, especially > doppler radars used for wind profiling. Different radar frequencies > get different pieces of the weather picture. > > -- > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > > 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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
I'd love to get Faisal and Fred in a room together and just be a fly on the wall ... Friendly Regards, Mike Mike Gilchrist Disruptive Technologist Advanced Wireless Express 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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?
At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: >You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about >that :) Thanks. :-) >Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:- > >The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line >world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world >used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the >Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 >years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from >TDM ...(speaking loosely). > >In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, >have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... >performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power >consumption, etc etc... It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small clusters, like <50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service beyond dial tone. In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... >... >BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most >of the "mesh" networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline >protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual >problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link >quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... >which takes link quality into account as well when making routing >decision.. but you are not going to find OSLR in commercial radios >not at the moment... That's one reason why MicroTik's HWMPplus looked attractive. It is designed for wireless, and claims to take link conditions into account. It looks like a direct competitor for OSLR. >If you look at all of the folks who are delivering successful mesh >products, you will find them to be using 'proprietary' developed >mechanisms to deal with the issues..e.g. Ruckus Wireless uses it's >special antennas and a 'zone controller' to keep the Mesh radios in tip >top shape, by dynamically adjusting all of the parameters on a real >time basis.. > >As far as finding a multi-radio board... there are a few available best >to see the link to Wili Box site that I had sent in an earlier email... >they list out a number of mfg. for both the sbc's and the radios.. the >question you will have to figure out is..on what part of the 'network >design' ... 'ip routing ?' you will be willing to make a compromise >on...and you still have not addressed the question of >"Antennas":) after using a good working 802.11n radios with >MiMo Antennas... it is rather hard to go back to regular stuff... I'm definitely interested in MIMO. LTE, which is starting to be rolled out in the CMRS world and, separately, in the public safety radio world, includes MIMO, both beamforming for range and parallel transmission for close-in speed. If I could find a pole-top system (mesh node) that did dynamic MIMO instead of using sectorized antennas, it'd be a serious win. Also, 4x4 MIMO is probably coming out soon, and at 5.8 GHz a proper 4x4 antenna is still pretty small, and has of course a lot more gain (and interference notching) than 2x2. WiMAX can have MIMO too (it's an option), but I haven't seen it in the unlicensed low-cost world. >Faisal Imtiaz >Snappy Internet& Telecom > > > >On 6/19/2010 8:50 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > > > > This is one of the problems with any kind of "best efforts" routing > > or bridging. Loss does accumulate. Of course it's the > > single-frequency meshes where loss goes totally gaga. One of the > > advantages of Carrier Ethernet with Q-in-Q is that CIRs can be > > assigned to different points along the way, with reserved capacity, > > so the near-in nodes don't hog everything. I don't think HWMPplus > > does full CE, but it may have some tools to play with. If anybody > > can suggest a better software load for a field-mountable multi-radio > > processor, notably one that does MEF CE, I'm not wedded to > > MicroTik. This is interim, after all; we hope to have our own code > > at some point. > > > > On the Layer 2 v 3 thing, the distinction is artificial. Off the > > shelf, LAN-oriented L2 switching does dumb bridging, based on an > > assumption that it's all on-site with plenty o
Re: [WISPA] interference from ships
At 6/20/2010 07:36 AM, Greg Ithen wrote: >A quick googling of "900mhz maritime radar" turned up nothing. A >googling of "900mhz radar" turned up a few devices for "ground >penetrating radar" (finding public utilities pipes and cables under pavement). You need to look for "915 MHz", which is the center frequency. You'll find a lot of weather-related radar, especially doppler radars used for wind profiling. Different radar frequencies get different pieces of the weather picture. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] interference from ships
A quick googling of "900mhz maritime radar" turned up nothing. A googling of "900mhz radar" turned up a few devices for "ground penetrating radar" (finding public utilities pipes and cables under pavement). Wouldn't these drilling rigs be using sub-centimeter GPS for on station positioning rather than some fancy 900MHz radar? Greg On Jun 19, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > Hi Jason, > > The ship may be doing something perfectly legal, just incompatible > with us. The 902-928 band's primary allocation, in the FCC table of > allocations, is radiolocation (radar). So it could be blasting high > power out on 915 (+/- 13) as part of a radar system, which it > probably doesn't need to be running in port but doesn't turn > off. Also, the band is assigned to ISM (Part 18) heating > applications. That has a cap on power leakage, sort of, but no > explicit cap on power, and it appears that the leakage is expressed > in relation to the actual power used. There could be some kind of > process taking place there that uses ISM, though radar looks more likely to > me. > > The FCC lets us use these bands without license because they're > basically junkyards. 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/
