Re: [WISPA] Network Redesign

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:08 -0500, Alan Bryant wrote: 
> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
> renumbering everything?

This depends a little on whether the space you currently own is
contiguous or not AND just how tight the available space is.  It is
usually easier to just add another subnet to an interface when you need
more space.  Of course, if you have the luxury of knowing the historical
growth on the tower, then you will have a good idea how much time a /27
will last you (for example).  There really is no need to completely
renumber unless you have to "return" some IP space to your provider.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] Maximum sector power?

[Jack Unger]

Fred Goldstein wrote:

  At 6/25/2010 03:31 AM, Blair Davis wrote:
  
  
I thought this one was settled a long time ago...  The FCC regulates 
transmitters.

  
  
In general, yes.  But they have claimed authority over receivers 
too.  Remember that even receive-only satellite Earth stations 
required licenses in the days before DBS.  

You're pretty far off the WISP track here Fred. 

  And the proposed rules for 
unlicensed microwave did restrict receive antenna gain too, to the 
same as the transmitter gain, though I think they were rewritten 
(based on Comments) to permit receivers to use separate, higher-gain antennas.
  

How does this apply to WISPs today? 

  
  
  
CPE to AP is PtP.  AP to CPE is PtMP.

  
  
The impact of this seems backwards.  

Makes perfect sense to me. 

  In general, subscriber stations 
put out less power than a base station.  Mobile phones put out 0.2 
watts (CDMA) to 0. watts (GSM), while base stations are macro 
watts.  So allowing unlimited CPE power with strict caps on 
base-station power does not seem efficient.  It's an accidental 
property of a rule that seemed to make sense at the time.  I assume 
that WISPs usually adjust CPE radio power to the minimum 
required.  Do any of these low-cost systems have dynamic gain 
control, like cellular?
  

Comparing cellular to WISP is apples to oranges. 

  
  
  
This was prior to "smart AP's" and the AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.

  
  
Do you have a cite for the "120 degree rule"?  I couldn't find a Bob 
Pepper speech or a Rule on the topic.  (Dr. Pepper and Vic 
Budweiser?  Is this the FCC or a bar?)  But there could be precedent.
  

Doesn't really matter unless you're iuto splitting hairs from two
different heads and comparing them because it's a boring day.

  
Perhaps it's time for a Petition to modernize the rules.  I might 
suggest, for instance, that the EIRP cap be set at 4 watts/[6dB 
beamwidth/360].  So an omni antenna would be 4 watts and an 18 degree 
antenna would be 80 watts.  Or a slightly lower compromise, 4 
watts/[6dB beamwidth/120], so that only gain above 6 dBi resulting 
from a beamwidth of less than 120 degrees is allowed. This gets fun, 
however, with MIMO beamforming, where you have multiple lobes, so it 
has to be worded to sum the beamwidths and effective gain/loss of the 
  

Feel free to file your own petition with the FCC and be prepared to
spend a lot of your own money pursuing it... and for what? Sounds like
a solution in search of a problem. 

  lobes, etc.

  
  
RickG wrote:


  Does the FCC take its cues from the IRS? :)

  

  
  
Now now, let's not insult the accountants at the IRS. ;-)

  
  

  On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Rubens Kuhl 
 wrote:

  
  

  The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then

  

My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
to the downlink (WISP -> Customer) .



  

  
  
  --
  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/


  


-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com









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] Maximum sector power?

[Robert West]

You mean like hacking a router to pump out 1 watt of power and have it sit
next to your head while you sleep at night?  That FCC indoor limit I totally
agree with.  I've never understood people who have to max out an indoor
household router that will broadcast for 3 blocks.  

Who can disagree with that?

Bob-



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?

At 6/24/2010 12:12 AM, Robert West wrote:
>Stick with the rules, dude.   You'll still get customers and you'll still
>make money.
>
>One FCC visit can ruin your day,

Oh, I intend to advise my clients to stick with the rules, and I design
networks accordingly.  I'm just a little surprised at how easy it seems to
break them, even inadvertently.

The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then the
FCC is terrible at drawing lines.  Their whole approach to rulemaking is to
pick out point cases and decide them, and then leave it to everyone to
figure out which point case is closest to the problem at hand.  I largely
work in the CLEC space and the rules for intercarrier compensation are
totally whacked-out.  Some are from 1984, some from 1996, some from 2001,
and there's newer case law all over the place, and none make any sense in
the real world.

So they are probably viewing PtMP as your basic home 802.11b access point,
which they don't want tricked out too far, and PtP as your basic
dish-to-dish microwave hop.  Anything else is left to interpretation.

They are apparently pretty strict about the shared bands in the 5.4 GHz
range. At 5.8, it's ISM, which is basically a junque band, like 2.4, so the
rules are less strict and I'm guessing there's less enforcement. But that's
not a reason to design outside of the rules.

>Bob-
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>Behalf Of Fred R. Goldstein
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:41 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?
>
>I'm just a little confused about some of these nice-looking access points.
>The UBNT Rocket M5, for instance, can put out +27 dBm.  It plugs *right
>into* a nice 19dB sector antenna.  Okay, the smaller,
>120 dB sector is only 16 dB.  Now math is not really my thing but I get 
>a total ERP there of +43 to 46 dBm.
>
>FCC Rule 15.247 states that the maximum transmitted power output for 
>digitally-modulated intentional radiators in the 5725-5850 MHz band
>("ISM") is 1 watt, and the maximum antenna gain is 6 dBi.  Each 
>additional dB of antanna gain means one less dB of power.  So the 
>maximum ERP is 4 watts (+36).
>
>Point-to-point is an exception in that specific band; it is allowed 
>unlimited antenna gain.  But "point-to-multipoint systems, 
>omnidirectional applications, and multiple co-located intentional 
>radiators transmitting the same information" are under the cap.
>
>So am I correct in assuming that everybody who uses the Rocket M5, or 
>any other similar PtMP system for subscriber access, turns the 
>transmitter power REAL low (~+20 + feedline loss), in order to keep the 
>ERP below +36?  Or are we assuming that since you're technically only 
>transmitting and receiving to one end user at a time, it's really PtP?
>
>SkyPilot's legal hack, of course, is to have eight 45 degree sector 
>antennas and only use one at a time, so it is legally PTP even with
>+42 EiRP. And with advanced 11N 4x4 beamforming antennas, something
>like that will become relatively easy.  But we're not quite there yet.
>Thoughts?
>
>   --
>   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/

Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?

[Robert West]

Dude, your vernacular is getting me a bit excited.  Not cool.

Time for a shower.  Sheeesh!

Bob-





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:39 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?

At 6/24/2010 09:32 AM, Bob West wrote:
>Man, that's ugly.  I've never tested the spread of the older nanos, the 
>new M series look as if they stay where you put them though.  But 
>that's a mess...

Sure is.  I smell hardware.  Looking at the plot over time, it reminded me
of a well-known phenomenon from the vacuum tube era, parasitic oscillation.
Drifting crappy waveforms, not constant power.  Isn't that why the tetrode
was invented?  I have vague memories of using "gimmick" capacitors (two
pieces of teflon-insulated wire, twisted together tighter or looser to
adjust) to neutralize VHF power amplifiers, back around 40 years ago.

I've never taken apart a Ubiquiti or MikroTik board but I'd guess that they
are using a reasonably high-gain final output transistor with some
microstrip PC-board tuned circuits.  A little out of spec and you can find
enough feedback to make it oscillate.  Maybe too high a VSWR?  Or just a
marginal design?  Positive feedback to the parasitic itself caused by heat,
making it get worse as it warms up?  Just an OT guessing, of course.

>Bob-
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
>Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:56 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?
>
>Do not forget OOB and the likes. I have been using AirView for a while
>to check on my sites and some were unacceptable to me (5mhz but still
>hitting 10 or 20mhz at -85) so I replaced the cards (all MT sites). I
>am unsure if the cards are bad, going bad, or just how they were
>working from day one. Swapped them, and they look much better. I have
>been hunting down interference (most of it not self, only 2 links were
>over lapping and that due to the spread on the cards). I noticed that
>some sites had a higher then expected noise floor. I tracked it down
>to pretty much all of my NS5's (non M's). There is a pretty high bleed
>from a number of them. The linked airview screen shot shows a site
>with nothing but a nano5 in AP WDS mode with no clients connected. It
>is set for 5mhz and ch 164.  The step to -...@5.810 is present with in
>30 seconds of powering the nano. The next step down, to about
>-...@5.793 a bit after that (60~90sec). This was taken with a rocket
>and 120* 16db sector about 10ft in front and 10ft below the nano. The
>nano is running stock firmware and will be replaced with a nano5m.
>
>
>
>http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8832/snapshot3v.png
>

  --
  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] Maximum sector power?

[Robert West]

I suspect it's all by design.  Much like how easy it is to defeat the kill
switch on lawn mowers, the seat belt alarm in automobiles, etc.Most
manufacturers have the "Use Local Regulatory Domain" check box.  Everyone,
and I mean EVERYONE has ran outside the legal limits if only for a little
bit and usually for valid reasons so for this I'm grateful, but what I take
issue with is non-commercial carriers (and "pirate" ISPs) who run the
equipment wide open just because they can.  Yes, I've come across private
individuals who throw up private links outside of FCC limits.
But I'd never pick up the phone and dial that FCC number.  Bad Karma.  Won't
happen.  A nice letter to the offending party that hints of being FCC works
quite nicely.  :)

I also think that parts of the regulatory limits are vague on purpose.  Hey,
it's just like the Bible!  Subject to interpretation.  Just hope Pat
Robertson isn't your FCC rep.

Bob-

"It's summer, it's too hot and I'm tired of climbing 300 foot towers in the
hot friggin' sun just to come home and have the wife expect me to fold the
laundry"



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?

At 6/24/2010 12:12 AM, Robert West wrote:
>Stick with the rules, dude.   You'll still get customers and you'll still
>make money.
>
>One FCC visit can ruin your day,

Oh, I intend to advise my clients to stick with the rules, and I design
networks accordingly.  I'm just a little surprised at how easy it seems to
break them, even inadvertently.

The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then the
FCC is terrible at drawing lines.  Their whole approach to rulemaking is to
pick out point cases and decide them, and then leave it to everyone to
figure out which point case is closest to the problem at hand.  I largely
work in the CLEC space and the rules for intercarrier compensation are
totally whacked-out.  Some are from 1984, some from 1996, some from 2001,
and there's newer case law all over the place, and none make any sense in
the real world.

So they are probably viewing PtMP as your basic home 802.11b access point,
which they don't want tricked out too far, and PtP as your basic
dish-to-dish microwave hop.  Anything else is left to interpretation.

They are apparently pretty strict about the shared bands in the 5.4 GHz
range. At 5.8, it's ISM, which is basically a junque band, like 2.4, so the
rules are less strict and I'm guessing there's less enforcement. But that's
not a reason to design outside of the rules.

>Bob-
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>Behalf Of Fred R. Goldstein
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:41 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?
>
>I'm just a little confused about some of these nice-looking access points.
>The UBNT Rocket M5, for instance, can put out +27 dBm.  It plugs *right
>into* a nice 19dB sector antenna.  Okay, the smaller,
>120 dB sector is only 16 dB.  Now math is not really my thing but I get 
>a total ERP there of +43 to 46 dBm.
>
>FCC Rule 15.247 states that the maximum transmitted power output for 
>digitally-modulated intentional radiators in the 5725-5850 MHz band
>("ISM") is 1 watt, and the maximum antenna gain is 6 dBi.  Each 
>additional dB of antanna gain means one less dB of power.  So the 
>maximum ERP is 4 watts (+36).
>
>Point-to-point is an exception in that specific band; it is allowed 
>unlimited antenna gain.  But "point-to-multipoint systems, 
>omnidirectional applications, and multiple co-located intentional 
>radiators transmitting the same information" are under the cap.
>
>So am I correct in assuming that everybody who uses the Rocket M5, or 
>any other similar PtMP system for subscriber access, turns the 
>transmitter power REAL low (~+20 + feedline loss), in order to keep the 
>ERP below +36?  Or are we assuming that since you're technically only 
>transmitting and receiving to one end user at a time, it's really PtP?
>
>SkyPilot's legal hack, of course, is to have eight 45 degree sector 
>antennas and only use one at a time, so it is legally PTP even with
>+42 EiRP. And with advanced 11N 4x4 beamforming antennas, something
>like that will become relatively easy.  But we're not quite there yet.
>Thoughts?
>
>   --
>   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
>
>

Re: [WISPA] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/25/2010 10:45 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> > OpenWRT and OLSR or BATMAN on a Routerboard or Ubiquiti CPU platform
> > may be ideal, but I need to learn more about OLSR and BATMAN in
> > practice.  BATMAN seems to be a distance-vector algorithm, like, uh,
> > DECNET 3 and 4 and IGRP, while OLSR is link state, like OSPF.  I am
> > partial to link state.  The BATMAN guys note that it doesn't scale
> > well, especially >100 nodes, but I'm not looking to have that many in
> > a domain.  Distance vectors are fast to learn new routes but have
> > problems with dropped routes.
>
>Although TRILL is being developed on networks with fiber-rich diets,
>it might be good to a wireless mesh:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRILL_%28computing%29
>
>In essence, Layer 2 link-state that is good for meshes. The question
>if link-state or distance-vector is more appropriate to a wireless
>mesh is something yet to be defined, but you said you are partial to
>link-state, so TRILL will probably thrill you.

Yes, TRILL looks like a good idea.  And since Radia Perlman wrote the 
RFC, I trust that it is of unusually high quality for an RFC. 
;-)  However, the only daemon I'm aware of is for OpenSolaris 
(Radia's at Sun), not a WRT.  It sure would be nice if either of the 
dueling WRT teams implemented it.

And btw I stand corrected on OLSR -- it's IP only -- BATMAN-adv is Layer 2.


  --
  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] MicroTik HWMPplus mesh?

[Rubens Kuhl]

> OpenWRT and OLSR or BATMAN on a Routerboard or Ubiquiti CPU platform
> may be ideal, but I need to learn more about OLSR and BATMAN in
> practice.  BATMAN seems to be a distance-vector algorithm, like, uh,
> DECNET 3 and 4 and IGRP, while OLSR is link state, like OSPF.  I am
> partial to link state.  The BATMAN guys note that it doesn't scale
> well, especially >100 nodes, but I'm not looking to have that many in
> a domain.  Distance vectors are fast to learn new routes but have
> problems with dropped routes.

Although TRILL is being developed on networks with fiber-rich diets,
it might be good to a wireless mesh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRILL_%28computing%29

In essence, Layer 2 link-state that is good for meshes. The question
if link-state or distance-vector is more appropriate to a wireless
mesh is something yet to be defined, but you said you are partial to
link-state, so TRILL will probably thrill you.



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] Maximum sector power?

[Stuart Pierce]

They were discussing the 120* rule at the WISPCON in your neck of the woods, 
where you brought in bandwidth to the Pony Express lounge hotel.

-- Original Message --
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:30:05 -0400

>I'm not aware of any AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.
>
>I personally feel it is still a grey area what a PTP link is. It was not so 
>grey before when Certified Systems was a big thing.
>When everything was a Certified System software had to be shown to only allow 
>one radio to connect to it.
>When there is a hybrid device that could be configured for PTP or PTMP, if the 
>radio is certified via the alternate method, it technically is a PTP if it is 
>used in a PTP manner, and a PtMP if used in a PTMP manner. It will be much 
>harder to tell if a Radio installation is compliant via just a visual look, as 
>it requires looking into the software to see if more than one CPE were 
>connected.
>We explored this to death with FCC. Even if a 3ft 3 degree beamwidth antenna 
>was used, if two CPEs existed on the far side right next to each other, it was 
>considered a PtMP system.
>That would also bring up questions for radios that had two radio transmitters 
>embedded at the CPE side.
> 
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: Blair Davis 
>  To: WISPA General List 
>  Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:31 AM
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?
>
>
>  I thought this one was settled a long time ago...  The FCC regulates 
> transmitters.  
>
>  CPE to AP is PtP.  AP to CPE is PtMP.
>
>  This was prior to "smart AP's" and the AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.
>
>  RickG wrote: 
>Does the FCC take its cues from the IRS? :)
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
>  The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then
>  My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
>the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
>say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
>antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
>to the downlink (WISP -> Customer) .
>
>
>
>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/
>
>  
>
>
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>  
> 
>  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/
>
 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/21/2010 11:46 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>..From Wili Mesh Website...
>Look at the Supported Platform.. these are pretty much most of the SBC
>Mfg. that make a multi radio board for use in outdoor AP.

At first Wili looked good.  But I read some of its forum postings and 
learned about its limits.  Wili's "mesh" seems to use the old 
Trango-era definition -- a lame network that works one hop, maybe 
two, from an injection point, aimed at building and campus coverage, 
and limited city use.  It is not what I call a mesh, meaning a 
network with an arbitrary mesh (any node can link to any other) 
topology.  OSPF, as an example, supports a mesh topology, but only in 
IP.  Wiliboxes have one "uplink" and one "downlink", period.  Not 
even rings. HWMPplus still looks better, on paper/pixels, but 
RouterOS is remarkably closed for Linux.

OpenWRT and OLSR or BATMAN on a Routerboard or Ubiquiti CPU platform 
may be ideal, but I need to learn more about OLSR and BATMAN in 
practice.  BATMAN seems to be a distance-vector algorithm, like, uh, 
DECNET 3 and 4 and IGRP, while OLSR is link state, like OSPF.  I am 
partial to link state.  The BATMAN guys note that it doesn't scale 
well, especially >100 nodes, but I'm not looking to have that many in 
a domain.  Distance vectors are fast to learn new routes but have 
problems with dropped routes.

BTW today's discussion (different thread, I know) points out how this 
class of equipment really does mostly do its smarts using IP-layer 
protocols.  Most of the layer 2 stuff is "bridging", an obsolete 
concept from the 1990s.  I'd love to see layer 2 "switching", as in 
MEF Carrier Ethernet.  That's based on tags, not MAC addresses, and 
has CIR/EIR per flow.

But then I may have something better in the works so this is all interim.

>Regards.
>
>
>
>
>*SUPPORTED HARDWARE*
>
>*Supported CPU architectures:*
>Intel IA32
>Intel XScale
>MIPS
>ARM-9
>
>*Supported 802.11 radio modules:*
>Based on Atheros chipsets:
>AR5004
>AR5006
>AR2313
>AR2316
>AR5213
>
>  From different vendors:
>Ubiquity Networks
>SENAO
>Z-COM
>WISTRON and other
>
>*Supported platforms* (contact sa...@wilibox.com
> for details)
>ADI Engineering Pronghorn
>PC Engines WRAP.2C
>Gateworks Avila
>Wistron RDAT81
>LanReady AP1000
>LanReady FN522
>LanReady WDR800
>Zinwell ZW4400
>
>
>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
>
>
>On 6/21/2010 9:08 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 6/21/2010 01:01 AM, you wrote:
> >
> >>> 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
> >>
> > It looks interesting, at a high level.  But is OpenWRT up for use on
> > the multi-radio outdoor nodes?  The one such vendor that I am aware
> > of is UBNT.  Since we our contemplating our own long-term solution,
> > I'm looking for something that works without a whole lot of work out
> > of the box.  Configuration, sure; coding, no.  So how hard is it to
> > run BaTMAN-adv on a RouterStation?
> >
> > I suppose with three cPCI radio slots on the board and Ethernet that
> > could go to an external radio, a decent-sized node, even sectorized,
> > could be built out of this class of gear, given some nice packaging.
> >

  --
  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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Travis Johnson]

Just in case a DHCP server goes crazy at the show...

You can never be too careful you know...

Travis


Mike Hammett wrote:
> I think it's more alarming that Interop has a /8.  Something that's only 
> open 4 times a year needs 16 million IPs?
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 6/25/2010 5:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>   
>> I think you mean Ford?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>>
>>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>>> space then".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>>> 1% of it. :(
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>>  
>>>   
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: RIPEMD160



 On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:


 
> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>
>  
>   
 Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.

 I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.

 um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
 current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
 instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.

 I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
 assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
 justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.



 
> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
> me an idea.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>   wrote:
>
>  
>   
>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>   wrote:
>>
>>
>> 
>>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>>
>>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>>> renumbering everything?
>>>
>>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>   
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>  
>   
 - --
 Bradley D. Thornton
 Manager Network Services
 NorthTech Computer
 TE

Re: [WISPA] Network Redesign

[Philip Dorr]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Alan Bryant
 wrote:
> As public IP addresses are limited and at times hard to come by, we
> are trying to use them as efficiently as possbile, however, we
> basically have a /24, 2 /22's, and a /23 allocated to us right now. I
> have decided upon a subnet for every AP that includes some room for
> growth, but not a lot. What I am not sure of is how to add a new
> subnet to an AP once it runs out of space. Do I just point a new
> subnet to that AP and I'm fine having multiple subnets on the AP? Do I
> need to renumber to make the current subnet larger?

Just add a new subnet (and appropriate routing) and you should be able
to use the new IPs.



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Josh Luthman]

It's like Motorola with Canopy.  Bureaucracy creates a lot of overhead :/

On 6/25/10, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> I think it's more alarming that Interop has a /8.  Something that's only
> open 4 times a year needs 16 million IPs?
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 6/25/2010 5:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I think you mean Ford?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>>
>>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>>> space then".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>>> 1% of it. :(
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>>
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: RIPEMD160



 On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:


> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>
>
 Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.

 I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.

 um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
 current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
 instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.

 I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
 assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
 justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.



> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
> me an idea.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>   wrote:
>
>
>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>   wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>>
>>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in
>>> without
>>> renumbering everything?
>>>
>>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if
>>> more
>>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
 - --
 Bradley D. Thornton
 Manager Network Services
 NorthTech Computer
 TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
 TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
 http://NorthTech.US

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

 iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSEKAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3uuoIAKB/8AkHziOZCOKRycZtTk+d
 loyN/Zhh9HlhUN8WcrlFrYbedHZF4F7Cjun9VtF4/Uh2cMIP5LH8Aw

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Mike Hammett]

I think it's more alarming that Interop has a /8.  Something that's only 
open 4 times a year needs 16 million IPs?

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 6/25/2010 5:03 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I think you mean Ford?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>
>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>
>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>> space then".
>>
>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>> 1% of it. :(
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>  
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>>
 We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
 more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
 multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.

  
>>> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
>>>
>>> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
>>>
>>> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
>>> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
>>> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
>>>
>>> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
>>> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
>>> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
 plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
 location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
 found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
 me an idea.

 On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
   wrote:

  
> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>   wrote:
>
>
>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>
>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>
>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>> renumbering everything?
>>
>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

  
>>> - --
>>> Bradley D. Thornton
>>> Manager Network Services
>>> NorthTech Computer
>>> TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
>>> TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
>>> http://NorthTech.US
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSEKAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3uuoIAKB/8AkHziOZCOKRycZtTk+d
>>> loyN/Zhh9HlhUN8WcrlFrYbedHZF4F7Cjun9VtF4/Uh2cMIP5LH8AwHokgASiwJ4
>>> BAq6fdi+6JgJ8CKB30Oj+eQyxP/SY4aaHf2QIhs8FwuaWGA1j8PnjyDZBS3ucUYp
>>> 6Gvu1JlF9UhYjwIA1I+RYTUqRUrQlNw59E8uVyZwXvT/QmxH0rZs58SHW0EU65Ch
>>> Lvn/xV7K4Wcv32PYeMT24cHg+ygh+d9EKix8

Re: [WISPA] Network Redesign

[Alan Bryant]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Bradley D. Thornton
 wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
>
>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>
> I'm not quite understanding.
>
> That's not the most efficient -

I realize it is not the most efficient, that is why we are trying to
redesign our network now, before it gets even more out of hand and
hard to manage.

>
>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>> it out on the private side isn't a problem,
>
> That's what I'm not getting. What does 'out' mean? Does this mean it's
> out of the question? Does it mean it is out, as in, having already been
> deployed? Or does it mean it won't be a problem for you to deploy it?

Perhaps my choice of words was not the best now that i read back over my post.

I'm saying redesigning the IP routing for the Private IP's (Management
IP's) will not be a problem as we can use, as you said earlier,
10.0.0.0/8 and probably never run out.

>  but the public side is.
>
> I really don't understand this.

As public IP addresses are limited and at times hard to come by, we
are trying to use them as efficiently as possbile, however, we
basically have a /24, 2 /22's, and a /23 allocated to us right now. I
have decided upon a subnet for every AP that includes some room for
growth, but not a lot. What I am not sure of is how to add a new
subnet to an AP once it runs out of space. Do I just point a new
subnet to that AP and I'm fine having multiple subnets on the AP? Do I
need to renumber to make the current subnet larger?

> how many public IPs do you need? are you intending on doing 1:1 NAT for
> all of the CPEs?

We do not currently do NAT except for customers who only have one
computer and then our CPE does it.

We are not worried about getting more IP space, we can get it from our
upstream until ARIN is satisfied with our multi-homed arrangement or
our current IP usage.



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Bradley D. Thornton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160

r...@condor:~# whois 53.0.0.0

OrgName:cap debis ccs
OrgID:  CDC-6
Address:RRZ-S/K
Address: c/o Mercedes Benz AG
Address: Postfach 6002 02
Address: Mercedestr. 136
Address: 7000 Stuttgart 60
City:
StateProv:
PostalCode:
Country:DE

NetRange:   53.0.0.0 - 53.255.255.255
CIDR:   53.0.0.0/8
NetName:DB-NET2
NetHandle:  NET-53-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType:Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.SNS-FELB.DEBIS.COM
NameServer: NS2.SNS-UT.DEBIS.COM
Comment:
RegDate:1992-03-17
Updated:1993-10-18

RTechHandle: KW62-ARIN
RTechName:   Weiler, Klaus
RTechPhone:  49-711-1753493
RTechEmail:  d...@debis.de

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2010-06-24 20:00
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# Attention! Changes are coming to ARIN's Whois service on June 26.
# See https://www.arin.net/features/whois for details on the improvements.

On 6/25/2010 3:28 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Dang... I thought I was losing my mind, because your list didn't include 
> MB. However, after doing a search I found this...
> 
> http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/02/13/where-did-all-the-ip-numbers-go-the-us-department-of-defense-has-them/
> 
> Mercedes actually goes by "Cap debis css".
> 
> I knew MB had a /8, because I remember an article in Time magazine a 
> while ago that they were going to assign a static IP address to every 
> single car they produced. Not sure if that ever happened, but that was 
> their plan 5 years ago.
> 
> Travis
> Microserv
> 
> 
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I think you mean Ford?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>   
>>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>>
>>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>>> space then".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>>> 1% of it. :(
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>> 
> 
> 
> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> 
>   
>> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
>> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
>> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>>
>> 
> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
> 
> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
> 
> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
> 
> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
> 
> 
>   
>> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
>> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
>> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
>> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
>> me an idea.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>>  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>>
>>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
 upstream all the way to the customer.

 Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
 Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
 it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.

 We are leani

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Josh Luthman]

Cap Debis CCS (Mercedes-Benz)

CCS not CSS you computer person you =P

Clearly some of them are real dicks.

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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> Dang... I thought I was losing my mind, because your list didn't include
> MB. However, after doing a search I found this...
>
> http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/02/13/where-did-all-the-ip-numbers-go-the-us-department-of-defense-has-them/
>
> Mercedes actually goes by "Cap debis css".
>
> I knew MB had a /8, because I remember an article in Time magazine a
> while ago that they were going to assign a static IP address to every
> single car they produced. Not sure if that ever happened, but that was
> their plan 5 years ago.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I think you mean Ford?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>>
>>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>>> space then".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>>> 1% of it. :(
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>>>
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: RIPEMD160



 On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:


> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>
>
 Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.

 I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.

 um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
 current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
 instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.

 I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
 assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
 justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.



> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
> me an idea.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
>
>
>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>>
>>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>>> renumbering everything?
>>>
>>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Travis Johnson]

Dang... I thought I was losing my mind, because your list didn't include 
MB. However, after doing a search I found this...

http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/02/13/where-did-all-the-ip-numbers-go-the-us-department-of-defense-has-them/

Mercedes actually goes by "Cap debis css".

I knew MB had a /8, because I remember an article in Time magazine a 
while ago that they were going to assign a static IP address to every 
single car they produced. Not sure if that ever happened, but that was 
their plan 5 years ago.

Travis
Microserv


Josh Luthman wrote:
> I think you mean Ford?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>   
>> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
>> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
>> /18 without too much trouble.
>>
>> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
>> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
>> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
>> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
>> space then".
>>
>> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
>> 1% of it. :(
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>> 
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
>>>
>>>   
 We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
 more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
 multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.

 
>>> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
>>>
>>> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
>>>
>>> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
>>> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
>>> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
>>>
>>> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
>>> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
>>> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
 plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
 location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
 found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
 me an idea.

 On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
  wrote:

 
> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>  wrote:
>
>   
>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>
>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>
>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>> renumbering everything?
>>
>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>   
 
>>> - --
>>> Bradley D. Thornton
>>> Manager Network Services
>>> NorthTech Computer
>>> TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
>>> TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
>>> http://NorthTech.US
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>> iQEcBAEBAw

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Josh Luthman]

I think you mean Ford?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IP_address_blocks

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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our
> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a
> /18 without too much trouble.
>
> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over
> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would
> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2
> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more
> space then".
>
> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than
> 1% of it. :(
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
>>
>>> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
>>> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
>>> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>>>
>>
>> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
>>
>> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
>>
>> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
>> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
>> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
>>
>> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
>> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
>> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
>>> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
>>> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
>>> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
>>> me an idea.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
 can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?

 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
  wrote:

> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
> upstream all the way to the customer.
>
> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>
> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
> renumbering everything?
>
> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
> information is needed to give better answers.
>
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
 -
 Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com





>>>
>>>
>>
>> - --
>> Bradley D. Thornton
>> Manager Network Services
>> NorthTech Computer
>> TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
>> TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
>> http://NorthTech.US
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSEKAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3uuoIAKB/8AkHziOZCOKRycZtTk+d
>> loyN/Zhh9HlhUN8WcrlFrYbedHZF4F7Cjun9VtF4/Uh2cMIP5LH8AwHokgASiwJ4
>> BAq6fdi+6JgJ8CKB30Oj+eQyxP/SY4aaHf2QIhs8FwuaWGA1j8PnjyDZBS3ucUYp
>> 6Gvu1JlF9UhYjwIA1I+RYTUqRUrQlNw59E8uVyZwXvT/QmxH0rZs58SHW0EU65Ch
>> Lvn/xV7K4Wcv32PYeMT24cHg+ygh+d9EKix84W8B7vLqeSd1vnm1CSwrfRzxdog8
>> cZxli+q76ICjMGbFk/tLqOKMBjxjCBAVueHBu9vs9z7GTM/KgQg6H2bGA86ZCh8=
>> =KUIB
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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: h

Re: [WISPA] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Bradley D. Thornton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160



On 6/25/2010 2:43 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our 
> first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a 
> /18 without too much trouble.
> 
> A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over 
> a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would 
> only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2 
> years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more 
> space then".

Wow it's getting really tough then. Alan also said he wasn't multi-homed
(don't let that get out).

Perhaps one of the best things he can do is pick up a separate provider
and aquire adequate IP space from them, slowly migrating everything over.

But from his email, I really couldn't tell if he was bringing pubic IPs
all the way to the CPEs or not.

> 
> Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than 
> 1% of it. :(

Makes me wanna vom. And the worst part is, most of these biggies were
handed out to megacorps before they knew what the Internet was, or even
had a use for those blocks.

> 
> Travis
> Microserv
> 
> 
> Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
>   
 We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
 more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
 multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
 
> 
> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
> 
> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
> 
> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
> 
> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
> 
>   
 Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
 plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
 location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
 found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
 me an idea.

 On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
  wrote:
 
> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>  wrote:
>   
>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>
>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>
>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>> renumbering everything?
>>
>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>   

 
> 
>>
>>
-

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.wi

Re: [WISPA] Network Redesign

[Bradley D. Thornton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160



On 6/25/2010 2:08 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
> upstream all the way to the customer.
> 
> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.

I'm not quite understanding.

That's not the most efficient - you could have a lot of noise on your
backbone, but if that's not a major concern yet, you can actually do
this simply by going w/network 10 and masking it 255.0.0.0

You'll prolly never run out of space that way either, although there's
only so many nanoseconds in a second and so much collision detection and
retransmitting an ethernet bus can handle.

> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
> it out on the private side isn't a problem,

That's what I'm not getting. What does 'out' mean? Does this mean it's
out of the question? Does it mean it is out, as in, having already been
deployed? Or does it mean it won't be a problem for you to deploy it?


 but the public side is.

I really don't understand this.

how many public IPs do you need? are you intending on doing 1:1 NAT for
all of the CPEs?


> 

- -- 
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
NorthTech Computer
TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
http://NorthTech.US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSPDAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3NGsH/37GinAc1ytHEKqeOWpVrovS
3lW9a1chdFquydDJfzCb4m1B7jorwAz+GpIPljd7r2qhAmRTCOXOz54xM7LZy0Ft
rcWkuA7+zQbIyfjEKthHPbtaLPbqsp9gd5YCktqIrDtpot62dvf0aW5OBaR5LLEy
a2SGS2cC7Fw0Od5+GeYG0x0qNN8bIOx1aHUY+A789zg4I3oFeL5ooPsXYDLQRJGK
uklNHd3akl8M37c25PSkllPYsoOALSeorQNvplr8lqAWP6pT1DqP2H75wAyPoRyz
BPv6uMi2Sd/V5Go6Y3fAXt2q9jJKQj9j2Bo0ZXcDezcdiSnpzx48o+R61kmau6w=
=pw6D
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Travis Johnson]

It's not that easy anymore. Seven years ago when we applied to get our 
first ARIN block, it took about 2-3 days and some paperwork. We got a 
/18 without too much trouble.

A year ago, we started the process to get another block. This took over 
a month, with over 30 emails back and forth, and even then they would 
only allocate us a /20 because that's all we would need for the next 2 
years. When I asked about year 3 and on, they said "re-apply for more 
space then".

Meanwhile, places like Mercedes have a /8 and they are using less than 
1% of it. :(

Travis
Microserv


Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
>
> On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
>   
>> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
>> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
>> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>> 
>
> Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.
>
> I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.
>
> um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
> current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
> instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.
>
> I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
> assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
> justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.
>
>   
>> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
>> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
>> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
>> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
>> me an idea.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>>
>>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>>  wrote:
>>>   
 We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
 upstream all the way to the customer.

 Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
 Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
 it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.

 We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
 and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
 IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
 is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
 tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
 renumbering everything?

 I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
 information is needed to give better answers.

 -
 Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com




 
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> 
>
> - -- 
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Manager Network Services
> NorthTech Computer
> TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
> TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
> http://NorthTech.US
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSEKAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3uuoIAKB/8AkHziOZCOKRycZtTk+d
> loyN/Zhh9HlhUN8WcrlFrYbedHZF4F7Cjun9VtF4/Uh2cMIP5LH8AwHokgASiwJ4
> BAq6fdi+6JgJ8CKB30Oj+eQyxP/SY4aaHf2QIhs8FwuaWGA1j8PnjyDZBS3ucUYp
> 6Gvu1JlF9UhYjwIA1I+RYTUqRUrQlNw59E8uVyZwXvT/QmxH0rZs58SHW0EU65Ch
> Lvn/xV7K4Wcv32PYeMT24cHg+ygh+d9EKix84W8B7vLqeSd1vnm1CSwrfRzxdog8
> cZxli+q76ICjMGbFk/tLqOKMBjxjCBAVueHBu9vs9z7GTM/KgQg6H2bGA86ZCh8=
> =KUIB
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> 
> 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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Mike Hammett]

That's where PPPoE (dhcp probably would as well) and extra addresses 
come in.

When a tower runs out of a subnet, you can just add another subnet, or 
move to a larger one.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 6/25/2010 4:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.
>
> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
> me an idea.
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>   wrote:
>
>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>   wrote:
>>  
>>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>>
>>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>>> renumbering everything?
>>>
>>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>
>
>



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Bradley D. Thornton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160



On 6/25/2010 2:21 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
> more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
> multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.

Getting new blocks from you upstream should take them about 10 minutes.

I recommend you go straight to ARIN and do the justification for a /16.

um... Just think about your network as it will be in ten years, at your
current rate of expansion, and then project your need ahead two months
instead of 10 years, and you'll be fine.

I got all my /24 and /16 NET-BLKs from nic.ddn.mil under direct
assignment a couple of decades ago, but they were requiring
justifications even when it was internic.net, before ARIN.

> 
> Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
> plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
> location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
> found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
> me an idea.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
>> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
>> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>>
>> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>>  wrote:
>>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>>
>>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>>
>>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>>> renumbering everything?
>>>
>>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
NorthTech Computer
TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
http://NorthTech.US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJSEKAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3uuoIAKB/8AkHziOZCOKRycZtTk+d
loyN/Zhh9HlhUN8WcrlFrYbedHZF4F7Cjun9VtF4/Uh2cMIP5LH8AwHokgASiwJ4
BAq6fdi+6JgJ8CKB30Oj+eQyxP/SY4aaHf2QIhs8FwuaWGA1j8PnjyDZBS3ucUYp
6Gvu1JlF9UhYjwIA1I+RYTUqRUrQlNw59E8uVyZwXvT/QmxH0rZs58SHW0EU65Ch
Lvn/xV7K4Wcv32PYeMT24cHg+ygh+d9EKix84W8B7vLqeSd1vnm1CSwrfRzxdog8
cZxli+q76ICjMGbFk/tLqOKMBjxjCBAVueHBu9vs9z7GTM/KgQg6H2bGA86ZCh8=
=KUIB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] Authoritative BIND issues

[Mike Hammett]

I dumped the VM, started from scratch using webmin to build everything 
and we came out well.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 6/25/2010 4:27 PM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> And now upgrade ;)
>
>  http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4022
>
>  http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-0097
>
> It will never end with BIND - MUUUuuhahahahaha!
>
> pls see below for additional comments.
>
>
> On 6/4/2010 2:22 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> I got the errors to stop (period after the Origin, put there by a config
>> generator), but it still doesn't answer for itself and looks to the
>> roots and so on.
>>  
> Don't do that Mike.
>
>
>> If I'm issuing the command as I stated below, it shouldn't matter that
>> the public authoritative server is elsewhere, would it?
>>  
>
> Yes it absolutely does.
>
> What you might do, depending on what you're trying to do, is create a
> new NS RR for it in the master db file, and then slave the master.
>
> You can also make your machine a manual master by doing an AXFR of the
> zonefile from the AUTH server, then changing the SOA and NS Records in
> that zonefile to indicate that your new server is actually the (or at
> least one of) AUTH name server for that zone.
>
> But really, most of the reasons you would do the second item (which it
> sounds like you're trying to do), probably aren't part of why you're
> doing this.
>
> If you want the server to answer AUTH, then merely slave the master, coz
> what you're doing is bordering on what is known as creating a 'hidden
> master'. Which is what we do with servers for rootzones or TLD zones
> where the real master isn't even accessible from the outside, and only
> allows for zone AXFRs from the machines that are 'slaving' the hidden
> master, and even though they're slaving it, it is their IPs that are in
> the NS records as AUTH for the zone(s), making them AUTH, and masters,
> even though they're slaving the zone from a hidden master.
>
> We do this too in registries.
>
>   I'm trying to
>
>> build this new system without messing with the production system.
>>  
> Just edit the db file for the zone in question on the master, adding
> your new box as AUTH for the zone w/an  NS RR, then on the new box,
> merely slave the master.
>
> Don't forget to up your serial before HUP'ing the master when you load
> the new zonefile.
>
> if you are trying to set up a new forward facing master, and slave the
> zone from a hidden master, then the SOA should be the machine that is
> slaving the hidden master, and all other AUTH servers should simply
> slave that machine's zonefile, with their glue included  in that file.
>
>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/4/2010 1:12 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>  
>>> I'm trying to setup a new authoritative BIND server, but all test
>>> queries I issue to the server (dig @serversIP test.domain) get forwarded
>>> to the root servers and so on.  My zones have recursive searching
>>> disabled.  How is this happening?
>>>
>>> There are errors in loading the zone,  but if all queries are being sent
>>> out to the public Internet, how am I going to be able to test the new
>>> system?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>>  
> - -- 
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Manager Network Services
> NorthTech Computer
> TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
> TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
> http://NorthTech.US
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJR80AAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3bNsH/Arq5Vy7fQiSgKrQDqfQq0mM
> +Qp4Psg20GgTVeBDsDytH13MSNUrPu+3JhaUbPc+b7hr+f7qxgbXfardhLQxpP2V
> mI2A3NZB2TfMAMYKhdrYEJOedCrFa/Jmz6gjDuQvvDUQG3aCE0N10mXhkXBgsTUJ
> F+FGLRAlvAhWB5TimXhV+vWfmwNjkz55jaWPv/lBN3VGosfoVmcAtvizV3yywixx
> Ia+pYrgpGw98ao4/tbdwt4ZHF7syPJ98DHa3qCo5GEqD9ljujcyU8olpjptx5W/l
> FYEfikQeTF/LgCdCESifeNrHrjQofrfqvtKxXOUpf/WkGVMDHchZOjDH7mrQ/+I=
> =F0dn
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> 
> 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.w

Re: [WISPA] Authoritative BIND issues

[Bradley D. Thornton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160

And now upgrade ;)

http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2009-4022

http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2010-0097

It will never end with BIND - MUUUuuhahahahaha!

pls see below for additional comments.


On 6/4/2010 2:22 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I got the errors to stop (period after the Origin, put there by a config 
> generator), but it still doesn't answer for itself and looks to the 
> roots and so on.

Don't do that Mike.

> 
> If I'm issuing the command as I stated below, it shouldn't matter that 
> the public authoritative server is elsewhere, would it? 


Yes it absolutely does.

What you might do, depending on what you're trying to do, is create a
new NS RR for it in the master db file, and then slave the master.

You can also make your machine a manual master by doing an AXFR of the
zonefile from the AUTH server, then changing the SOA and NS Records in
that zonefile to indicate that your new server is actually the (or at
least one of) AUTH name server for that zone.

But really, most of the reasons you would do the second item (which it
sounds like you're trying to do), probably aren't part of why you're
doing this.

If you want the server to answer AUTH, then merely slave the master, coz
what you're doing is bordering on what is known as creating a 'hidden
master'. Which is what we do with servers for rootzones or TLD zones
where the real master isn't even accessible from the outside, and only
allows for zone AXFRs from the machines that are 'slaving' the hidden
master, and even though they're slaving it, it is their IPs that are in
the NS records as AUTH for the zone(s), making them AUTH, and masters,
even though they're slaving the zone from a hidden master.

We do this too in registries.

 I'm trying to
> build this new system without messing with the production system.

Just edit the db file for the zone in question on the master, adding
your new box as AUTH for the zone w/an  NS RR, then on the new box,
merely slave the master.

Don't forget to up your serial before HUP'ing the master when you load
the new zonefile.

if you are trying to set up a new forward facing master, and slave the
zone from a hidden master, then the SOA should be the machine that is
slaving the hidden master, and all other AUTH servers should simply
slave that machine's zonefile, with their glue included  in that file.

> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/4/2010 1:12 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I'm trying to setup a new authoritative BIND server, but all test
>> queries I issue to the server (dig @serversIP test.domain) get forwarded
>> to the root servers and so on.  My zones have recursive searching
>> disabled.  How is this happening?
>>
>> There are errors in loading the zone,  but if all queries are being sent
>> out to the public Internet, how am I going to be able to test the new
>> system?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 

- -- 
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
NorthTech Computer
TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
TEL: +44.702.405.1909 (UK)
http://NorthTech.US

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJMJR80AAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3bNsH/Arq5Vy7fQiSgKrQDqfQq0mM
+Qp4Psg20GgTVeBDsDytH13MSNUrPu+3JhaUbPc+b7hr+f7qxgbXfardhLQxpP2V
mI2A3NZB2TfMAMYKhdrYEJOedCrFa/Jmz6gjDuQvvDUQG3aCE0N10mXhkXBgsTUJ
F+FGLRAlvAhWB5TimXhV+vWfmwNjkz55jaWPv/lBN3VGosfoVmcAtvizV3yywixx
Ia+pYrgpGw98ao4/tbdwt4ZHF7syPJ98DHa3qCo5GEqD9ljujcyU8olpjptx5W/l
FYEfikQeTF/LgCdCESifeNrHrjQofrfqvtKxXOUpf/WkGVMDHchZOjDH7mrQ/+I=
=F0dn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Alan Bryant]

We do not have them from ARIN, but we are in the process of getting
more from our upstream. ARIN will not give us any until we are
multi-homed or have at least a /20 I think they said.

Anyway, we haven't run out yet, I'm just trying to get an idea and
plan for what we will do if we run out on a single AP or tower
location. I've never encountered anything like that, and have not
found anything in my limited searching that is similar enough to give
me an idea.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:
> If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
> can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?
>
> 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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
>  wrote:
>> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
>> upstream all the way to the customer.
>>
>> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
>> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
>> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>>
>> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
>> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
>> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
>> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
>> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
>> renumbering everything?
>>
>> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
>> information is needed to give better answers.
>>
>> -
>> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>



-- 
Alan Bryant | Systems Administrator
Gtek Computers & Wireless, LLC.
a...@gtekcommunications.com | www.gtek.biz
O 361-777-1400 | F 361-777-1405



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] [Motorola II] Network Redesign

[Josh Luthman]

If you're getting your IPs from ARIN and are running out, clearly you
can justify another block.  Is there not enough time for this?

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 Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Alan Bryant
 wrote:
> We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
> upstream all the way to the customer.
>
> Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
> Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
> it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.
>
> We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
> and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
> IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
> is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
> tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
> renumbering everything?
>
> I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
> information is needed to give better answers.
>
> -
> Official list of the Animal Farm Motorola Users Group - www.afmug.com
>
>
>
>



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] Network Redesign

[Alan Bryant]

We are in the process of redesigning our entire network from our
upstream all the way to the customer.

Currently everything is bridged and on the same physical network.
Obviously we are wanting to change this for many reasons. Subnetting
it out on the private side isn't a problem, but the public side is.

We are leaning towards having routeros based routers at every tower
and subnetting all the way to the AP's. We don't have enough public
IP's to allow enough room for much growth. My main question is, what
is the best course of action once you run out of IP's at an AP or
tower? What is the most efficient way of bringing more IP's in without
renumbering everything?

I appreciate any and all responses on or off list. Let me know if more
information is needed to give better answers.



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] Maximum sector power?

[Tom DeReggi]

I'm not aware of any AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.

I personally feel it is still a grey area what a PTP link is. It was not so 
grey before when Certified Systems was a big thing.
When everything was a Certified System software had to be shown to only allow 
one radio to connect to it.
When there is a hybrid device that could be configured for PTP or PTMP, if the 
radio is certified via the alternate method, it technically is a PTP if it is 
used in a PTP manner, and a PtMP if used in a PTMP manner. It will be much 
harder to tell if a Radio installation is compliant via just a visual look, as 
it requires looking into the software to see if more than one CPE were 
connected.
We explored this to death with FCC. Even if a 3ft 3 degree beamwidth antenna 
was used, if two CPEs existed on the far side right next to each other, it was 
considered a PtMP system.
That would also bring up questions for radios that had two radio transmitters 
embedded at the CPE side.
 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Blair Davis 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Maximum sector power?


  I thought this one was settled a long time ago...  The FCC regulates 
transmitters.  

  CPE to AP is PtP.  AP to CPE is PtMP.

  This was prior to "smart AP's" and the AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.

  RickG wrote: 
Does the FCC take its cues from the IRS? :)

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
  The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then
  My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
to the downlink (WISP -> Customer) .



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/

  



--




  

  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] Autoreply: Wireless Digest, Vol 30, Issue 27

[dave]

Greetings. I will be out of the office today June 25th and back on Monday.
If your matter is urgent:

For  quote requests, send email to quo...@ctg3.com

Additional support contacts:
Bethany Crowell - (206) 383-8938 - bcrow...@ctg3.com

Marti Perkins - (360) 425-1212 - ma...@ctg3.com

Amy Matthews - (206) 245-3735 - a...@ctg3.com

Heather Adams - (971) 207-5758 - heat...@ctg3.com

Margaret Johnson - (253) 639-9536 - marga...@ctg3.com

Beth Nichols - (509)838-1404 - b...@ctg3.com

Gene Cleary - 206-686-3750 - g...@ctg3.com

Dave Laskowski
CTG3 - Senior Partner
425-458-4070 Voice
425-696-1337 Fax
d...@ctg3.com
www.ctg3.com
---
PS: Always send pricing requests to quo...@ctg3.com for the fastest response
---





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] Maximum sector power?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/25/2010 03:31 AM, Blair Davis wrote:
>I thought this one was settled a long time ago...  The FCC regulates 
>transmitters.

In general, yes.  But they have claimed authority over receivers 
too.  Remember that even receive-only satellite Earth stations 
required licenses in the days before DBS.  And the proposed rules for 
unlicensed microwave did restrict receive antenna gain too, to the 
same as the transmitter gain, though I think they were rewritten 
(based on Comments) to permit receivers to use separate, higher-gain antennas.

>CPE to AP is PtP.  AP to CPE is PtMP.

The impact of this seems backwards.  In general, subscriber stations 
put out less power than a base station.  Mobile phones put out 0.2 
watts (CDMA) to 0. watts (GSM), while base stations are macro 
watts.  So allowing unlimited CPE power with strict caps on 
base-station power does not seem efficient.  It's an accidental 
property of a rule that seemed to make sense at the time.  I assume 
that WISPs usually adjust CPE radio power to the minimum 
required.  Do any of these low-cost systems have dynamic gain 
control, like cellular?

>This was prior to "smart AP's" and the AP 120 deg or less beamwidth rule.

Do you have a cite for the "120 degree rule"?  I couldn't find a Bob 
Pepper speech or a Rule on the topic.  (Dr. Pepper and Vic 
Budweiser?  Is this the FCC or a bar?)  But there could be precedent.

Perhaps it's time for a Petition to modernize the rules.  I might 
suggest, for instance, that the EIRP cap be set at 4 watts/[6dB 
beamwidth/360].  So an omni antenna would be 4 watts and an 18 degree 
antenna would be 80 watts.  Or a slightly lower compromise, 4 
watts/[6dB beamwidth/120], so that only gain above 6 dBi resulting 
from a beamwidth of less than 120 degrees is allowed. This gets fun, 
however, with MIMO beamforming, where you have multiple lobes, so it 
has to be worded to sum the beamwidths and effective gain/loss of the 
lobes, etc.

>RickG wrote:
>>
>>Does the FCC take its cues from the IRS? :)
>>

Now now, let's not insult the accountants at the IRS. ;-)

>>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Rubens Kuhl 
>> wrote:
>>

The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then

>>>
>>>My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
>>>the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
>>>say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
>>>antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
>>>to the downlink (WISP -> Customer) .
>>>
>>>

  --
  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] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Glenn Kelley]

ROFL 


On Jun 25, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Robert West wrote:

> But did you spell it wrong?  I win!
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Glenn Kelley
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:32 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access
> 
> funny - I just emailed him the same thing :-)
> 
> Thanks Bob
> 
> 
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Robert West wrote:
> 
>> Covered by County Connections, WISPA member.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Stuart Pierce
>> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:00 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access
>> 
>> Anyone ?
>> 
>> Nike-95
>> 8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
>> Jeffersonville, OH 43128 
>> 
>> Might get some free shoes. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/
> 
> 
> _
> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
>  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.




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] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Robert West]

But did you spell it wrong?  I win!



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Glenn Kelley
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:32 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

funny - I just emailed him the same thing :-)

Thanks Bob


On Jun 25, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Robert West wrote:

> Covered by County Connections, WISPA member.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Stuart Pierce
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:00 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access
> 
> Anyone ?
> 
> Nike-95
> 8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
> Jeffersonville, OH 43128 
> 
> Might get some free shoes. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/


_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.





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] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Glenn Kelley]

funny - I just emailed him the same thing :-)

Thanks Bob


On Jun 25, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Robert West wrote:

> Covered by County Connections, WISPA member.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Stuart Pierce
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:00 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access
> 
> Anyone ?
> 
> Nike-95
> 8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
> Jeffersonville, OH 43128 
> 
> Might get some free shoes. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/

_
Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com 
  Email: gl...@hostmedic.com
Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.




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] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Robert West]

Sorry Country Connections.  Left out a letter.  :)

http://countryconnections.net/



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:28 AM
To: spie...@avolve.net; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

Covered by County Connections, WISPA member.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Stuart Pierce
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

Anyone ?

Nike-95
8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
Jeffersonville, OH 43128 

Might get some free shoes. 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/




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] Wierd StarOS/OLSR - Ubiquity RocketM5 bridge - Cisco issue

[Jeromie Reeves]

Add in some packet sniffing time on the VLAN and watch OLSRs updates,
it should tell you what is causing the issue.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Michael Baird  wrote:
> Turn off extra reporting on the Ubiquities.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>> Sounds like Cisco / Vlan is giving you trouble...
>> Two suggestions... check if there is a loop getting created somewhere..
>> and 2nd suggestions... turn CDP off on the Cisco ...
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2010 8:08 PM, Scott Lambert wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 07:20:23AM -0600, Jayson Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>
 On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:


> On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Jayson Baker wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Scott Lambert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> We have been putting up some Ubiquity RocketM5 point-to-point
>>> bridge links, running airos 5.2, lately to replace some
>>> overloaded StarOS backhauls.  Where these links have gone in, we
>>> static route the traffic across them.
>>>
>>> These are our first experience with Ubiquity.  The first two
>>> were no muss, no fuss.  The third link went up nicely.  It's
>>> configured the same as the other two links.  About an hour after
>>> we plugged the local end at our office into the main switch,
>>> rather than a laptop, we started loosing routes to sites which
>>> pass through the tower at the far end of the link.
>>>
>>> All hosts on the tower LAN can see each other.  We can reach all
>>> of them from anywhere else on our network.  It is just routes
>>> for hosts connected wirelessly to that tower which are no longer
>>> known to the staros box which has the existing backhaul to our
>>> office.
>>>
>>>    **                   SNIPPED                     **
>>>    ** OLSR between StarOS boxes at the remote tower **
>>>    ** dropping routes, but not OLSR adjacencies     **
>>>
>>> Administratively shutting down interface gig0/3.13 at the office
>>> seems to be enough to heal OLSR at the tower.  If the tower LAN
>>> can see the cisco, we drop routes.  But the other ubiquity links
>>> connect back to the same cisco at the office.
>>>
>>> I think we will probably replace the switch at the tower tomorrow
>>> to see if it has problems we haven't tickled before.  I'm
>>> stumped.  Does anyone else have any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't quite follow all of that, it must be too early. But I can
>> tell you we have 4 of the PtP UBNT links using their M-series. 3
>> of those OSPF fine. The other won't OSPF for the life of me. All
>> same config and firmware on all units.
>>
>>
> Make sure you are running the most recent version of 5.2
> firmware.also you need to be running then in AP-WDS and CPE-WDS
> mode.
>
>
 I can't comment on the OP, but I can tell you that we are. OSPF talks,
 but never goes Full and exchanges routes.

 Latest FW on both ends. Like I said, same exact config as the other
 links which work perfect.


>>> I'm still waiting for a chance to test again during off-peak hours.
>>>
>>> I may have included too much information, and too little information,
>>> and created confusion.  The e-mail was helping me document and track
>>> my trouble shooting process.  I often solve my own problem while
>>> writing up e-mail to mailing lists.  Usually, because I've skipped
>>> some simple trouble shooting step without realizing it until I proof
>>> read the message before sending it.
>>>
>>> The summary is :
>>>
>>> When the Ubiquity bridge is up, passing traffic or not, the OLSR
>>> at the tower site begins having issues between StarOS routers
>>> directly connected to the tower switch.  The OLSR which is falling
>>> apart, does not need to cross the Ubiquity link in order to function.
>>> In fact, there is nothing at the near end of the link which could
>>> do anything with the OLSR packets.
>>>
>>> OLSR falls apart BEFORE I get to the point at which I would attempt
>>> to actually utilize the Ubiquity link.  The only traffic I am
>>> attempting to pass at the point of failure is from the office to
>>> the RocketM5 at the tower.
>>>
>>> Here are the series of changes to the network which lead to issues:
>>>
>>> Connect RocketM5 to tower switch:  OLSR at tower OK
>>>
>>> Create association AP-WDS at office to STA-WDS at the tower: OLSR
>>> at tower OK
>>>
>>> Connect RocketM5 AP at office to office switch in it's own VLAN:
>>> OLSR at tower OK
>>>
>>> Configure Cisco at office to join VLAN:  OLSR at tower falls apart
>>>
>>> Configure Cisco at office to exit VLAN:  OLSR at tower OK
>>>
>>> Cisco join VLAN to OLSR time to failure approximately 90 - 105
>>> seconds.
>>

Re: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Robert West]

Covered by County Connections, WISPA member.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Stuart Pierce
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

Anyone ?

Nike-95
8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
Jeffersonville, OH 43128 

Might get some free shoes. 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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/

[WISPA] Alvarion & Trango for sale

[Cameron Kilton]

I have:

(1) Trango 5830 AP $150
(1) Trango 5830-ext AP $150
(1) Alvarion AU-VL-5.8 $700
(1) Alvarion SU-E-54-5.8BD-VL $350
(1) Rev B Alvarion B28 BU and RB $600

Make an offer offlist. I'll cover ground shipping costs within the US.


-- 

Thanks Cameron



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] Jeffersonville, Ohio Internet Access

[Stuart Pierce]

Anyone ?

Nike-95
8890 Factory Shops Blvd, Bld 8 - Twr 4
Jeffersonville, OH 43128 

Might get some free shoes. 





Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.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] Maximum sector power?

[Blair Davis]

I thought this one was settled a long time ago...  The FCC regulates
transmitters.  

CPE to AP is PtP.  AP to CPE is PtMP.

This was prior to "smart AP's" and the AP 120 deg or less beamwidth
rule.

RickG wrote:

  Does the FCC take its cues from the IRS? :)

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
  
  

  The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity.  But then
  

My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
antennas can follow PtP instead of PtMP rules, which would apply only
to the downlink (WISP -> Customer) .



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/

  







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/