Re: [WISPA] Employee Tracking Program
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Eric Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a company that would like to track real-time and summary information of internet activity of it's employees (by IP). They are looking for summary information, not email content/instant messenger chats/passwords. What would be ideal would be a passive device that acts like a sniffer that either hits layer 7 and reads the www.xx.com from the data portion of the packets, or just looks at the DNS traffic, tracks IPs and reports it. Maybe even amount of bandwidth spent at each IP... or something of that nature. If it's just reporting you want, Cymphonix makes boxes that do exactly what you're asking for. Can be a transparent bridge or a NAT gateway, has all kinds of fancy reporting, tracking, and filtering capabilities. I've had one for a while I keep meaning to put in place for our offices (our customer network has long since outgrown its capabilities). That, along with similar systems from Allot and Packeteer probably cost more than Ntop, Mikrotik, etc. but they provide tech support etc. that you may not want to have to do. 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] Cisco GSR Routers
You could also do a 6500 or 7600 with dual Supervisors power supplies. Mine carries full routes, dual GigE to the world, supports GigE, FE, ATM OC3, DS3, Packet Over Sonet (over OC3 or OC12), 48 96- port ethernet blades, and the list goes on. They have AC or DC power supplies. And they are big. Every port can either be switched or routed. -- Bryan On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: Hi Gino, GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a couple of mid-range VXRs would be a better solution. Or you could use a couple of ImageStream Rebel or Gateway routers for a fraction of the price. Either way, I'd use two routers in a redundant configuration with BGP and VRRP/HSRP for link and hardware failover. Regards, Jeff 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] VoIP Deployments....I'm serious
On Aug 9, 2008, at 8:41 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: We use a hybrid approach, asterisk for many things, and a Vox like company (it may even be Vox, not sure as I just approve the payments, Bryan is the one that vetted the company). Our VoiP system is form fit and function equivalent to a wired telephone from Qwest. We even port their Qwest number to our system and do E-911 in the same way. XO does the inbound, ZCorum does the outbound. Both providers talk SIP to our switching equipment; customers hang off Asterisk (which is tethered to the switches via SIP). Gives all of our customers the best of both (IP PSTN) worlds. Billing, as already mentioned, is simplistic with an all-you-can-eat approach. Our switches provide the CDRs, as does ZCorum, so we can check things if it gets a little hairy. -- Bryan 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] Nanostations
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now. Didn't have much luck with it as a client (on a NS5), but haven't tried it at the AP. -- Bryan 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] Streamlined DC Powered System
That's where I've gotten my RMS boards most recently. Recently being 6-12 months ago... On Jul 9, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Steve wrote: Hi John, I don't know about invictusneteworks. -- John McDowell wrote: Steve, do you normally by from invictusnetworks? I'm having trouble getting to their site. 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] Chrysler to make wifi hotspot cars
On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: #3. With linking the cars directly to the cellular telephone links, what effect WILL this have on WISPs? What happens when Verizon rolls- out the in your car and in your home package that rolls the EV-DO card into your monthly bill and you now don't have a need for a pipe at your home? A few answers. 1) Not everyone will move to Verizon (no iPhone ;) ), and EV-DO isn't everywhere. Many of us support rural areas where Verizon still doesn't exist (although with this Alltel acquisition pending, they'll be closer). 2) Many of our subscribers like to keep the money local (I hear that a lot). That's one reason they're our customers in the first place, and a good reason for them to stay if we provide service superior to that of the cell companies. 3) Gas costs too much for people to keep the car running to keep the hotspot up. :) 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] 2012 - The End of the Internet
On Jun 20, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote: I am probably way more rural than Tom DeReggi on this, and I could not agree with him more plus add to it as far as the so called gov't push to get broadband to the real rural markets. I think their push is more of a ghost as far as the FCC has ruled in the last 6 to 8 years. Just IMHO. There are some farmers along the Utah/Nevada border that are going to have fiber to the home before I ever will... -- Bryan 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] mission critical 100Mbps links
On Jun 18, 2008, at 11:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's all keep in mind that the redundancy is moot if you plug both radios into the same UPS or outlet. Who uses outlets? All our mission critical gear is -48VDC. :) -- Bryan 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] Voip over Wireless
On Jun 12, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Wallace L. Walcher wrote: Another WISP told me Packet8 works better on a wireless network than Vonage. It comes down to codec being used and the jitter buffer. Packet 8 has a significant jitter buffer. There's a noticeable delay that's very awkward. Really bad when you add the latency of a cell phone. We've had no problems with Vonage on both G.711u and G.729 (or whatever the lower bitrate codec is that Vonage uses), as well as our own G.711 stuff (ours has much less delay than any third-party solution). We're also not running this on any 802.11-based gear. Some routers will prioritize the traffic, and some radios will do so also, ensuring that the VoIP packets make it to and from the site backhaul before anything else does. That makes a huge difference. -- Bryan 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] Barracuda = Source of SPAM?
David E. Smith wrote: If i deny SMTP to all but the barracudas IP then won't people not be able to send email ? Obviously you'll have to adjust your firewall rules a little bit, to match your network. :) All of my MX records point to machines running the same set of spam filtering rules. Those boxes are my home-built equivalent to a Barracuda. The real mail server sits safely behind them and doesn't receive anything on port 25. Customers send to port 587 and are required to authenticate. Keeps that box nice and clean. I have watched all three filter boxes and see spammers try them in sequence of high to low priority, low to high, and sometimes hit all three at the exact same time. There is no point of even advertising the unprotected mail server's IP address to the world unless/until your Barracuda goes down. People can withstand a short delay in outside email far more than a sudden flood of spam, and that could theoretically clobber the box and cause more problems, depending on how it's built. -- Bryan 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] Question concerning IP Schema
Patrick Nix Jr. wrote: So then, static or DHCP'd We use DHCP for everyone, then hard code it in the dhcp config file for those who want to get the same one each time (i.e. static IP). As long as you can track who has what and when, it doesn't really matter. You'll need to know when the feds come knockin'. Your DHCP log is your best friend. Best to keep a few months if you have space; some investigations go on for a long time. For the sake of both the innocent and the guilty it's good to have some overlap in case IP's change from one customer to the next. -- Bryan 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] Question concerning IP Schema
Travis Johnson wrote: And to take it one step further, I've never understood using DHCP for customers. It makes it 10x easier for a rogue client to get on your network if you run DHCP instead of just static. You don't have to maintain any logs, or worry about your DHCP server having problems, etc. It seems one step easier than DHCP. We control what radios are allowed to connect to our AP's, the router built into the radio can be enabled (customer has no access to radio interface) as can MAC address masquerading, and DHCP servers can be configured to only accept or ignore specific MAC addresses, so the rogue client argument is a moot point for us. Our DHCP server has been humming along as-is for 5 years with occasional reboots for reasons unassociated with DHCP (boss shutting down circuit breaker, techs tripping on power cords, accidental reset button depression). Another non-issue. The situation we run into, in addition to what Chuck mentioned about renumbering, is adding, moving, or changing network segments, or moving customers from one segment to another without having access to the gear inside (i.e. re-aim to different tower while customer's at work). Short DHCP leases also make it harder to host services. (Those who want to though simply ask for a static IP, which we assign via DHCP to their router or computer. Statics come from different pools making other IP management tasks easier.) If everything is hard-coded, that's one more step to walk customers/installers through when installing, configuring, troubleshooting, etc. Since we don't own/maintain any CPE beyond the radio itself, DHCP is the best fit for us. -- Bryan 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] Metered Broadband
I think that's the catch phrase... open meaning, not blocked. So don't block p2p or any other traffic, just throttle it down... WAY down... I gave a talk about doing this with Linux + HTB a couple of years ago. I had our head-end traffic shaper doing classful queuing, giving each type of traffic a priority level, an average bandwidth level and a maximum that it could borrow from the other classes if they weren't doing anything. The borrowing concept is nice, allowing the majority of surfing/emailing customers to get what they need/want during peak hours, and the underground junk works slightly better after hours. Oh, and all the good P2P still works. VoIP, VPN/RDP/SSH and other latency-sensitive items got highest priority and a decent bandwidth allocation. The office got the next priority down (includes telemetry and other admin traffic) and plenty of bandwidth. Meat and potatoes apps like web surfing and email got a middle to lower priority with a big chunk of bandwidth. Unknown traffic got a low priority with some bandwidth but the option to borrow from others so that I didn't break anything. Known P2P traffic got the lowest priority and bandwidth allocation, but had enough that it wouldn't totally stop. Didn't get any complaints. This was very critical when we were bumping our heads on our DS3's, but doesn't buy me much with Gig-E circuits. So instead we monitor individual AP sites occasionally for heavy use. Just like everyone else we usually see one or two heavy users pop up every once in a while. And 9 times out of 10 it's a teenager. -- Bryan 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] Metered Broadband
There are arguments for flat rate and for metered for most utilities and services. All you can eat attracts people who don't want to worry about overages, where tiered usage plans cater to the penny-pincher who knows exactly how much (or little) he needs. For a service provider it is much simpler to offer flat-rate pricing than metered because you don't have to track usage. But it boils down to *your* needs and your customer base as an ISP. Ultimately customers need to understand that not all networks are created equal, and never will be 100% the same. Just as each physical medium has its own limitations, management styles, network design, and target customer each introduce variables that change the behavior of the network. You have to look at your target customer base and design a system for them, not let a few power-users dictate how you will run your business. The (generally illegal) actions of 10% of your users should not affect and hinder the (value added) service(s) you provide to the other 90+%. The real Net Neutrality concern should be about network owners purposefully hindering access to legitimate but less preferred content providers. Proponents cannot consider end-users as content providers, and that's what they're trying to do with the whole P2P mess. I pity the pro-P2P advocates; if the overwhelming percentage of P2P traffic that is illegitimate was taken out of the picture, their miniscule amount of valid traffic would fly under the radar and P2P would no longer be a problem. Scottie Arnett wrote: Jason, My TOS do the same thing, but just do a search about Comcast blocking Vuze(bittorrent) and see what has been happening over the last few months. First the FCC said it was a matter of them not having a statement of shaping traffic in their TOS, now it has come to that any provider offering internet service should have an open network! Scott -- Original Message -- From: Jason Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:31:29 -0700 Question: If you are privately owned and have received no federal (or otherwise) money for your network AND it is spelled out in your contract, could the FCC actually tell you you have to run wide open / allow any app? If so, where would the line get drawn (Universities, Libraries, etc...)? My contract prohibits running servers or peer to peer applications on the connection. Jason Scottie Arnett wrote: I am not sure what the costs should or will be? But...I will say that is where I think broadband will be headed, for sure, if the FCC keeps going the way they are headed(since the Comcast deal) with the completely open concept, such as no bandwidth shaping of any sort. Even the BIG players such as the major cable companies and the major telcos cannot operate their networks very long with the new bandwidth intensive apps coming along(unless its on their own network) with no bandwidth shaping. IMHO, I think this is how it should be, a cost per data transfer or a limit and then overage charges, just as electric, long distance, water usage, etc... have been for a long time. My 2 pence worth. Scott 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] tower lighting
Rick Harnish wrote: My understanding (no research done) is that if there are strobe lights installed, the towers do not have to be painted red/white. Therefore, many tower companies are installing strobes to cut down on maintenance (painting) of their towers. A night/day system which incorporates strobes during the day and red lights at night should be adequate since no one can see the red/white paint at night anyways. Over a certain height they have to be painted, no matter what (according to our local AM tower tech). I think it's around 200 feet. -- Bryan 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] tower lighting
I'm no expert, but I have seen many towers with significant height that aren't painted. Heck, to that extent, buildings over 200' would need to be red\white, then. The best part about posting to large lists is how quickly third-party information is either substantiated or shredded to millions of pieces. Thank goodness I'm just a network nerd and not the tower expert. We collocate some gear on a parasitic/backup AM tower that's around 250' or so. The active, main tower is 400' (it was supposed to be 800 but they gave up for one reason or another). He commented how everything of ours would have to be painted except our white dish that is in a white portion. He may have been quoting us (and is living by) pre-strobe rules. Or maybe they do what they do because they're AM towers.. in the proximity (~5 miles) of a large airport, etc. etc. 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] GSM - WiFi handover
Nigel Bruin wrote: On 19 Apr 2008, at 09:29, Christopher Orr wrote: Rogelio- I believe T-Mobile has that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the brand. Yup. UMA using Kineto equipment. Handover works well as long as you're not moving too fast. :) 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] OSPF tips
I'll have to try that. I set my PPPoE router to summarize that subnet, but it didn't work. Eric Rogers wrote: I agree with Bryan, with a tweak. A trick I just learned with RouterOS is you put your core routes on the 0.0.0.0 range and add your PPPoE range to a second area and then do an Area Range in the second range. It will keep your PPPoE from sending routes to all routers. It will summarize them so your routers will get fewer updates. You won't get /32 routes everywhere for every user. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bryan Scott Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OSPF tips rabbtux rabbtux wrote: Played with OSPF some, but am unclear on how to use the 'area' parameter in my topology. Unless yours is a multi-state topology with hundreds of routers, put everything into Area 0. It keeps things really simple. -- Bryan 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] OSPF tips
rabbtux rabbtux wrote: Played with OSPF some, but am unclear on how to use the 'area' parameter in my topology. Unless yours is a multi-state topology with hundreds of routers, put everything into Area 0. It keeps things really simple. -- Bryan 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] Femtocells
The cell carriers aren't using G711. I haven't seen how much a UMA call takes up, but I'd bet it's less than the 90K of G.711u. UMA basically encapsulates a GSM stream inside of an IPSEC tunnel. EDGE traffic gets up to 100K+ when surfing or downloading files, so I could see a data stream over UMA going up to 150-200K. If you're talking EVDO data transfers via a femtocell, it could get up to a couple megabits (whatever they're touting EVDO's capability as, plus some overhead for security). -- Bryan Mike Hammett wrote: I dunno if I'd use anything less than G.711. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Femtocells G.711 require 64kbps plus overhead. Normally about 90 kbps. But there are lossless compression methods that can cut this in about half. - Original Message - From: Marty Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Femtocells Does anyone know how much BW a call will require? Marty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Femtocells Hmm I see better opportunity going to the Cellco directly and offer them the service, so that they do a bundle to the end user... Internet - Femtocell And you make and arrangement with the cellco to deliver the traffic directly to them instead of going to the internet...Saving them some $$ On Internet Bandwidth and also providing a lower latency link to them!!! ... maybe this is the next step beyond voip... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 6:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Femtocells femtocells This is a great innovation that can help wisps gain market share. With these femtocells, the cell phone works in the house so the consumer doesn't need to have an extra land line. The customer is probably paying 80.00 or so for their dsl - telephone line. No land line needed for us wisps, the customer's 80.00 telco package is now in play. Maybe they want to trade it in for a faster and probably lesser expensive internet connection. It's a good opportunity for us, or the cable company. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wireless_show_femtocells;_ylt=ArOpXSwLh8fh4Jp nL.VHQpsjtBAF Verizon Wireless is joining Sprint Nextel Corp. in jumping on the latest craze in the wireless world: little boxes called femtocells that boost cell-phone coverage in subscribers' homes. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Femtocells
It's interesting to see how the wireless carriers are trying to compete with VoIP and (at the same time) leverage the broader coverage of broadband in areas where cell service is weak. On the cool side: A few of us here have been using T-Mobile's wifi service and GSM+WiFi phones for the past 8 or so months. Calls made over a WiFi connection don't count against minutes. That's a no-brainer since we're at home or the office 90% of the time. When we go to our remote sites where there is no cell coverage, I still have service if I can get WiFi connectivity. I bought an AirPort Express to take along for just that reason. On the down side: They're launching a VoIP product that competes directly with one we're about to launch; theirs is less, but it requires the cell phone contract to be oh-so much, almost making it a wash. Luckily they're not in our market. Whether you're for UMA over WiFi or Femtocell, it certainly enhances the value of the cell phone + Internet connection. -- Bryan Gino Villarini wrote: Hmm I see better opportunity going to the Cellco directly and offer them the service, so that they do a bundle to the end user... Internet - Femtocell And you make and arrangement with the cellco to deliver the traffic directly to them instead of going to the internet...Saving them some $$ On Internet Bandwidth and also providing a lower latency link to them!!! ... maybe this is the next step beyond voip... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 6:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Femtocells femtocells This is a great innovation that can help wisps gain market share. With these femtocells, the cell phone works in the house so the consumer doesn't need to have an extra land line. The customer is probably paying 80.00 or so for their dsl - telephone line. No land line needed for us wisps, the customer's 80.00 telco package is now in play. Maybe they want to trade it in for a faster and probably lesser expensive internet connection. It's a good opportunity for us, or the cable company. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wireless_show_femtocells;_ylt=ArOpXSwLh8fh4Jp nL.VHQpsjtBAF Verizon Wireless is joining Sprint Nextel Corp. in jumping on the latest craze in the wireless world: little boxes called femtocells that boost cell-phone coverage in subscribers' homes. 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] IPv6 and Us
Anthony R. Mattke wrote: Someone posted some questions about a year ago about IPv6 and most of us looked at it and said yeah, some day.. but for a lot of us IPv6 is our next step. What about IPv6-IPv6 gateways/6to4 tunnels? Anyone configure one on their network yet? I've done this at home with one of my Linux boxes and it works great on Linux and OS X. That's as far as I got. There are a lot of questions for anything thinking about IPv6 integration / migration, and I'd like to discuss some of the options as far as moving forward with IPv6 deployment with anyone that is interested. We went to an ARIN IPv6 meeting, and even got our initial IPv6 allocation. The biggest problem pointed out by the DOD presenter was that nobody's eating their own dog food. All the vendors are making IPv6 compliant gear, but it doesn't cooperate well (he cited various issues in their testing). That leads to the second problem, which is since nothing works, nobody deploys. Without anybody deploying, nothing gets tested so that it works. A big chicken-and-egg problem... After getting our deployment, I asked our (big name) upstream providers about setting up concurrent IPv6 peering or tunneling, whichever would work. They were reluctant and said they weren't really ready or couldn't do it. -- Bryan 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] Router Help
Bill Price wrote: We are just acquired a wireless network that has 3 tower locations. The router they were using was a Dlink DFL210(?) they had set up with a 6MB circuit. We need a router that will handle VLANS, handle more bandwidth if needed, QoS, firewall (This network does a NAT). Were looking for a routing platform that will handle not only Internet, but VOIP and IPTV in the future. I use 3550 with the EMI image at my tower sites (and used to for a little while at our head end). It's a switch with routing and QoS capabilities. Now EOL, but easy to come by on the used market. Replacement models are 3560 and 3750 I believe. -- Bryan 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] Router Help
Bill Price wrote: We are in the process of looking for a new router for our network. What are some routers that others are using? What are you replacing? What are your needs, i.e. where's this thing going? 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] GPS
Mike Hammett wrote: I am looking at getting a GPS device. I'd like it to work with many different programs such as Google Earth, Radio Mobile, Kismet, etc. What sort of features do I need it to have to work with these programs? I'd also like to have it be an independent unit with elevation so I can climb a tower and see exactly how tall it is instead of pulling a number out of you know where. Recommendations? I like the Garmin handhelds... got a GPSMAP 60c myself with a serial-bluetooth/power supply combo that spits NMEA out to my laptop or BlackBerry. -- Bryan 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] Looking for short licensed link
- Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just a suggestion, but I would cross reference your cable loss settings with the manual's guidelines. Your flaky behavior could be due to the ODU being overdriven or starved for power. Then again if you've already had Trango looking into this I'm sure they have already thought to double check your cable loss settings. I've calculated the values according to Times Microwave's site and the distances of the cable used, and it helped, but we're still seeing random latency in ping tests across the thing. I'll check the ATPC settings someone else mentioned; I know that we've got rate shifting turned off. -- Bryan 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] Looking for short licensed link
Brad Belton wrote: If you like, please provide me the cable length and type on each end. Then provide me the loss figures you have entered for each side. We'll compare notes between yours and ours. What version are you running? Side A - 50' of LMR400 + 17' of RG58 (or 59, whatever the 50 Ohm stuff is): Cable Loss 140: 1.20 Cable Loss 315: 2.08 Cable Loss 915: 3.45 Side B - 54' of LMR400: Cable Loss 140: 0.70 Cable Loss 315: 1.10 Cable Loss 915: 1.96 On Both: ATPC: Off Rate Shift: Off ODU RXGain: On 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/
