Re: [WISPA] RADIUS + StarOS + bandwidth ?
The tag was named, descriptively, for the first application it was intended for. The thing about radius attributes, is they are just a number, and can be used for any purpose, even Hotspot bandwidth control, which the Hotspot Server recognizes and uses. Lonnie On 2/15/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After a few really trying days in the office, I've got our shiny new > billing system, with integrated RADIUS and possibly a toaster oven, > humming along. Now that I've got a fancy computer thingy to keep track of > customers, I'd like to automate and centralize a few more things in my > network. > > StarOS supports RADIUS for just about everything, and (at least in a small > trial of one AP, that's only serving one customer) I can get the AP to > allow/deny customers access based on their CPE MAC. That's the easy part > :) > > What would be really swell, though, would be if I could tie customers' > bandwidth allocations into this as well. Valemount's Web site does have a > (teensy) RADIUS dictionary, but the bandwidth attributes all have "PPPOE" > in the name, which at least implies that customer bandwidth can only be > set if they're using PPPOE. > > I have no pressing desire to replace a few hundred CPEs and routers and > walk customers through installing PPPOE software and... well, you get the > idea. (Right now, we're primarily using MAC authentication and setting > customer bandwidth allocations by hand in each AP, but that means changes > have to be made at each tower, and having everything centralized would > just be spiffy, I think.) > > So. Does anyone know whether I can set customer bandwidth allocations with > StarOS, without switching the whole network to PPPOE? > > David Smith > MVN.net > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] RADIUS + StarOS + bandwidth ?
Yes, for PPPoE and Hotspot. You also have to merge in the dictionary. Lonnie On 2/15/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > > The tag was named, descriptively, for the first application it was > > intended for. The thing about radius attributes, is they are just a > > number, and can be used for any purpose, even Hotspot bandwidth > > control, which the Hotspot Server recognizes and uses. > > So I can just put VNC-PPPoE-CBQ-RX and VNC-PPPoE-CBQ-TX in my RADIUS Reply > packet and it'll do "what I expect?" Neat! > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
This is from a post I made in the Summer. It runs very nicely on out 4 radio WAR boards. Pretty sweet actually. Lonnie * I think you are basing your dislike on standard AdHoc mesh. Remember I too have come out and said it is not worth our time. We have some ideas and we will build something similar to OSPF but more intelligent and proactive about routes. We will make use of multiple radios and even Ethernet feeds. There is no reason that we cannot do a 5.x GHz mesh feeding some 2.4 GHz microcells. I see no reason to have a low performance system and we are shooting for 20 to 30 mbps at each node. It will not ruin it for anybody and kill make a KA network. It will be self healing so that any failure is simply routed around. Like OSPF but with steroids and more knowledge of the network. On 2/22/06, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George, > > I haven't seen his description but I'm glad to hear he's on the right > track. Do you recall a link to his information? > > Thanks, > jack > > > George wrote: > > > Hi Jack, > > > > This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back. > > > > George > > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > >> Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid > >> mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on > >> 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for > >> backhauling. In other words, separate the "access" traffic from the > >> "backhaul" traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many > >> times greater. > >> > >> jack > >> > > > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
ipment. I have a > >> small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and > >> I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. > >> Thanks, > >> Steve > >> > > > > -- > > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > > Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 > > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > > True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > > Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a > couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same > sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month > stage.. > > Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. > > Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick > your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments > that are down at street level. > > Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I > believe, much better stability. > > That help? > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment > sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run > my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > - Original Message - > From: ISPlists > To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have a > small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm > thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. > > Thanks, > Steve > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I am not disputing that at all. What I was saying that mesh is a routing mechanism and as such is used on the backhaul and microcell to tie them together. As such it is far superior to a backhaul and microcell approach without mesh routing. That is all I was trying to say. Lonnie On 2/23/06, chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The primary challenge from my experience is LOS issues on the link side. > You can solve this by deploying more nodes or more injection points > according to design and budget. The new 900 Mhz cards look interesting > to link those few out of the way nodes. > > chris > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:52 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you > would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives > the same functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are > fine because that is what people have been building since forever. > > Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks. Is that the > problem you see? > > Lonnie > > On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots > were a > > couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same > > sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month > > stage.. > > > > Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. > > > > Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, > pick > > your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi > deployments > > that are down at street level. > > > > Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, > I > > believe, much better stability. > > > > That help? > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment > > sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run > > my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: ISPlists > > To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM > > Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > > Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment. I have > a > > small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town > and I'm > > thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be great. > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.15.0 - Release Date: 2/1/2006 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get tweaks and add-ons. We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We felt it was ready for prime time. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post? > > M > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you would > not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives the same > functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are fine because that > is what people have been building since forever. Mesh handles routing > issues and requires routed networks. Is that the problem you > see? Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were > a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the > same sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 > month stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same > functionality. Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, > Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi > deployments that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater > flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I believe, much better > stability. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 > (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own > wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net > meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - > Original Message - From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; > 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: > [WISPA] Mesh Equipment Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh > equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the > entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be > great. Thanks, Steve -- WISPA > Wireless List: > wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: > http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA > Wireless List: > wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: > http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
No, but I posted a link to the manuals on the Support Forums. We use OLSR and you can get the manuals, etc yourself. http://www.olsr.org/ What specs do you need? This auto routes and is not limited to 2 layer like OSPF. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > good deal! > do you have info on the tech specs of the system in the website? > thanks. > > Mario > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. The > beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get tweaks and > add-ons. We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We > felt it was ready for prime time. Lonnie On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous > post? M Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: I guess you'll have to learn more about > Mesh because if you did you > would > not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives > the same > functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are > fine because that > is what people have been building since forever. > Mesh handles routing > issues and requires routed networks. Is that the > problem you > see? > Lonnie On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a > couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the > same > sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 > month > stage.. Having said that, you can still give them the same > functionality. > Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy, > Alvarion, pick > your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi > deployments > that are down at street level. Same functionality, greater > flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I > believe, much better > stability. > That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 > (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own > wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net > meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - > Original Message - > From: ISPlists To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; > 'WISPA General List' > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: > [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh > equipment. I have a > small town that wants to provide Internet access to the > entire town and I'm > thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be > great. > Thanks, Steve -- WISPA > Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: > http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA > Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: > http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: > wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: > http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with your alternate path. What is so terrible about that? Lonnie On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad, > > I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that. > Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with > Cell/Sector models more effectively. > As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that > task. > I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove > that, but there is no reason for me to. > Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. > Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > > Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but > > it > > has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or > > 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling > > several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all. > > Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come > > close > > to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro > > areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks > > coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP > > laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 > > mesh > > nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. > > > > I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers > > and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working > > on > > a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. > > > > What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right > > terrain > > and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects > > will > > get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a > > certain > > job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as > > broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > > > > Matt, > > > > I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them > > than are there. > > I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm > > simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience. > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
OLSR does put its handshaking on the sectors, but you are right, no data traffic goes down that alternate until the primary fails. The changeover is typically within 15 to 30 seconds. The other cool thing is being able to add ADSL backups into the system, at various spots (could be T1, cable, etc), and by assigning weights to them, you can have automatic gateway selection if your primary goes down. We have had these backups and alternate paths for years, but we managed them manually. It worked but what a pain it was, and things were frantic while you tried to figure out what went down and then get in and change routing by hand. Once things restored we had to go back in and roll the changes back. It was cool to be able to do those things, but it is even cooler to have those same capabilities but not to have to any of the manual changing. In this way I do say that smart engineers (OLSR developers) have coded the thing to be better than a human network techie (me). I know networking better than a lot of you guys and I still make mistakes. OLSR does not seem to be fooled and I have no hesitation in saying it is better than I am at routing decisions. Is it perfect? Is it the answer for all routing? NO to both, but it sure beats the way a lot of people are doing it. Lonnie On 2/25/06, Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or how about automatic sector failover that puts no traffic on the network > when things are working correctly. Brad > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some > routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. > > You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross > connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing > is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. > > We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing > does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks > or go out for lunch. You can assign weights to connections and force > your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which > hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with > your alternate path. > > What is so terrible about that? > > Lonnie > > On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brad, > > > > I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that> > Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with > > Cell/Sector models more effectively. > > As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for > that > > task. > > I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove > > that, but there is no reason for me to. > > Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend. > > Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine. > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'WISPA General List'" > > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > > > > > Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but > > > it > > > has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers > or > > > 1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling > > > several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all> > > Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come > > > close > > > to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro > > > areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks > > > coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP > > > laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 > > > mesh > > > nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see. > > > > > > I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile > centers > > > and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm > working > > > on > > > a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. > > > > > > What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have
Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
I am in agreement. Mesh is being abused by some people. Mesh is a routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing mechanisms. You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing. That is all we are doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option. I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let the MESH guys have their buzzwords. Lonnie On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term > to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is > flawed. > I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end > points to blanket an area. > > However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used > for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction > to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of > this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to > be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path > conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example. OSPF, has > been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is > really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to > wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link. MESH is > working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links. So > Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. > But I don't feel what it adds is "mesh". Mesh is not a protocol, its a > topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy > MESHes. What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER > routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often > misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered > network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path > to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell > router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with > Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology. > > I think people are confusing "MESH", a topology, with protocols utilized by > MESH. The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous > Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new > protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that > need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the > network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of > my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty > to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission. > > So in summary, "Progress" is not a "Solution". Progress is a science > project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an > award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just > progress. When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution. > > My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to > determine the best path and how it will effect others. The inteligence to > compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, > (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards > available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in > real time, at packet speed. > > MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has > promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, > however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a > solution yet. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment > > > Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some > routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one. > > You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross > connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing > is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route. > > We used to do this manually and what a pain it was. This new routing > does what I used to do, except
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
's pretty absent of trees you might look at 5.8. Trango has that > cpe for $150. Not going to find any propriety gear cheaper. > > Richard Goodin wrote: > > > > I have been planning my WISP for about a year, and have yet to begin > delivery of bandwidth to customers. My choice for service delivery > > was > > > > > > > 802.11b, but with increased competition from other services nearby > (about 5 miles away) I am wondering how to avoid problems. I have a > 50' tower, and it is ROHN 45g. My choice for antennas would be 4 90 > degree horizontal antennas. I have looked at bandwidth and shopped > > it > > > > > > > to death. My best price is $400 from Lime Light. And I've built a > couple of servers, acquired some switches and a router. The Router > > is > > > > > > > a Cisco 1750. > > My questions: > > What CPE's and AP's would work best in this environment? I want to > keep interferance to a minimum, as well as control costs. My > environment includes lots of desert, and single story buildings. > > Lee > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 10/04/2006 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006 > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/307 - Release Date: 04/10/2006 > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in future. I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. Both are Linux systems with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for firewall and bandwidth control. Also I have the traceroute to show the hops. lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx rx rate: 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # lon-home:~/staros # traceroute 10.10.29.1 traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms 2 10.10.48.254 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms 4 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms 3.581 ms 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 ms * 5.777 ms 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms lon-home:~/staros # Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > Is that TCP or UDP? > > Travis > Microserv > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps > of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. > > Lonnie > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dan, > > We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on > another wireless list. > > What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have > seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic passing > thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? > > Travis > Microserv > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT > have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. > > > > I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. > Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP > and all the other features available make a nice system > > > > > > > Dan Metcalf > Wireless Broadband Systems > www.wbisp.com > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 > > 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis > Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > Hi, > > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards > in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? > > Travis > Microserv > > Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site > > http://www.staros.com/starvx/ > > Cheers, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > So... Who makes them?, how much? > > > > > Hi Richard, > > This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that > George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and even > seems to improve signal quality. > > Cheers, > > P. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 > To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > Guys; > These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a > WISP > > operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 feet, > another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and > someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by > conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel > spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other > guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do > not > > need. > > Lee > > > Trango does make a good product. I still have 2 Sunst
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
Actually 2,286 KBytes/sec is 22.86 mbps as compared to the way Telcos rate their ADSL throughput, so I use the same x10 method. The quote of 35 mbps and higher is between two radios whereas the copy and paste shows through ten radios. Obviously to get 22 mbps at the end there is a higher rate in the middle since you lose a bit at each radio. Here is the test repeated on one radio hop. That radio link is also the main feed for the network that feeds to McBride and picks up 9 AP sites and over 200 customers. It brings the feeds into 4 resale ADSL lines that we get from Sprint. The normal traffic through that link is about 2 mbps so my test was competing with traffic on a live link. We use source routing to send particular customers to our choice of ADSL line. I do manual shifting for balancing, but since average throughput is 2 mbps and each ADSL line is 4 mbps / 1 mbps we are only scratching the surface. The system does peak to over 10 mbps but very, very rarely. Lonnie lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.48.254 password -tx tx rate: 4607 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # tracepath 10.10.48.254 1: 192.168.250.200 (192.168.250.200) 0.381ms pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)1.241ms 2: 10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)2.565ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 2 back 2 lon-home:~/staros # On 4/12/06, Michael Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Maybe my math is off this morning, for lack of coffee but > 2286 Kbit does not equal 22000 Kbit (2.286 Mbit does not equal 22 Mega > bit.) > which is what I thought I saw at first glance. > > So if that was KBYTE (which I think it is) instead of Kbit (Kb vs KB) > 2286 KBYTE x 8 = 18288 (18.288 Mega Bit) > > Which is certainly impressive considering the fact that its 10 radios away, > and 8 hops as the traceroute shows! > > But it is Still a bit above half the 30 or 35 Mbit you were previously > quoting. > > -Michael > > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never be > seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at building in > iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in future. I have a > network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 km of repeater > distances. The shot is split in half with mountain shots at each (43 km > each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to the POP in each town. We can > pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. > I have pasted a speed test from the POP in Valemount to the POP in McBride. > Both are Linux systems with 1 GHz or better processors that we use for > firewall and bandwidth control. Also I have the traceroute to show the > hops. lon-home:~/staros # starutil-1.14 10.10.29.1 password -rx rx rate: > 2286 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) lon-home:~/staros # lon-home:~/staros # > traceroute 10.10.29.1 traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets 1 192.168.250.10 0.430 ms 0.401 ms 0.496 ms 2 10.10.48.254 > 1.655 ms 1.447 ms 1.185 ms 3 10.10.227.254 2.686 ms 1.965 ms 5.428 ms 4 > 10.10.12.4 5.469 ms 3.250 ms 4.501 ms 5 10.10.47.253 4.946 ms 4.415 ms > 3.581 ms 6 10.10.51.254 6.077 ms 6.472 ms 8.063 ms 7 10.14.99.254 12.615 > ms * 5.777 ms 8 10.10.29.1 6.569 ms 7.295 ms 7.686 ms lon-home:~/staros > # Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, Is that TCP or UDP? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler > wrote: Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 > mbps of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible > data. Lonnie On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan, We > had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on another > wireless list. What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The > fastest I have seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP > traffic passing thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? Travis > Microserv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe that the atheros chipset > is capped at 35Mbps, although users of MT have claimed higher using very > fast cpu's. I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that > push 30Mbps…. Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus > QoS for VoIP and all the other features available make a nice > system Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM To: > WISPA
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
This may be the case, but the test we perform seems to describe what we see in real life use. As long as you have consistency it does not matter what you do. The ability to compare apples to apples is what is truly important, and since we began to use TCP many years ago, we still continue to do so, since it gives us a relevance and comparison to the systems in current use. My TCP numbers are lower than you'll get with a UDP test, so I am quite happy to compare my TCP to UDP because my TCP numbers are pretty nearly as high as numbers I hear reported for other high end systems that test with UDP. For instance, our TCP numbers on a WRAP board were always in the 23 to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, which is a number I have never seen even in my dreams doing an FTP transfer (with the WRAP boards). Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. Our goal is to give you numbers you will see in real life. After all, your user is going to be ragging on you based on the FTP results they see. I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a lower grade product because of a test method sure indicates a conclusion that needs to be re-examined. Results are what count, not how pretty you look or how good you sound. We have come pretty close to the goal of real world numbers, so I am not fazed at all by your lower grade product ranking. It is strange to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it either. They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to have the whole file delivered intact. Regards, Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The > reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, and > at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointless. I > see some people do TCP speed tests (a method other than FTP), and it goes > full capacity minus the percent packet loss of a percent or so. But then > when a FTP gets done performance drops to a few hundred kb. The reason is > FTP slows itself down to attempt to reduce packetloss. IN many wireless > systems, the packetloss stays consistent and can not be removed by reducing > speed, therefore the speed just keeps going slower and slower and slower > until it crawls. A TCP test also does not show consistency of a link, or > sparatic slow down, as they all get averaged out over the time period of the > test. If there are slowdown or hesitance on a wireless link using a UDP > test, the packetloss is instantly seen. Doing a TCP test may show peek > speed or average speed, but it does not show the ability to deliver > consistent speed, what most companies need that are buying wireless to > replace T1 lines. > > Relying on TCP test alone, limits your product to a lower grade product, > less than it can be. An adequate test, does not need to be a UDP test, it > can also be a layer2 test. The most valuable tool of Trango for example is > its Layer2 Linktest, that shows throughput, and most importantly packetloss > while performing that test. It gives the abilty to run a test that takes > priority over any other traffic on the link, to get the true full > performance of that link at that moment in time. It allows an integrator to > instantly be able to determine the health of their links with total > accuracy, quickly, without first disconnecting clients, that can be > complicated, when multiple Linux re-configures might be needed to stop all > other traffic. > > For radios that don't have their own MAC, Iperf is one way to get most of > the data collected. Measuring packet loss is more important than measuring > top speed in my mind. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > It is TCP. We do not use UDP since it gives a reading that will never > be seen by a customer doing an FTP download. We are looking at > building in iperf so we should be able to do tcp or udp tests in > future. > > I have a network from Valemount, BC to McBride, BC that has about 100 > km of repeater distances. The shot is split in half with mountain > shots at each (43 km each) and about 5 km from each mountain top to > the POP in each town. We can pull over 20 mbps from POP to POP. It > is 8 hops and goes through 10 radios. I have pasted a speed test from > the POP in Valemount
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
What we do is measure non compressible data and that becomes the absolute max I will let someone ask for. That means with compressible data we do better than they expect. No harm done, we figure. Lonnie On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS. UDP tests usually need to be run with Dynamic Modulation features > disabled. > > ISPs that delver telco grade services usually need to operate without > Dynamic moduilation anyway, to consistently guarantee the link capacity > available to tenants, and set at a speed that can deliver reliabilty > consistently, in my opinion. I know some orthogon users may differ in > opinion.. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:36 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > Using the 533 MHz IXP-420 we can get an Atheros to just over 35 mbps > of non compressible data and almost 90 mbps of compressible data. > > Lonnie > > On 4/11/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan, > > > > We had this discussion a few weeks ago, although it may have been on > > another wireless list. > > > > What processor and setup are you using to get 30Mbps? The fastest I have > > seen with routerboard 532's in a p2p config is 20Mbps of TCP traffic > > passing > > thru the RB's. Do you have outdoor enclosures? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that the atheros chipset is capped at 35Mbps, although users of > > MT > > have claimed higher using very fast cpu's. > > > > > > > > I have several atheros/MT/nstream links (PTP and PTMP) that push 30Mbps…. > > Pretty impressive throughput, plus adjustable channels, plus QoS for VoIP > > and all the other features available make a nice system > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Metcalf > > Wireless Broadband Systems > > www.wbisp.com > > 781-566-2053 ext 6201 > > > > 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis > > Johnson > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Does anyone know actual TCP throughput with StarOS on their 533mhz boards > > in just a point to point config, using 20mhz of spectrum? > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Paul Hendry wrote: All the details are on the Valemount web site > > > > http://www.staros.com/starvx/ > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 09:15 > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > So... Who makes them?, how much? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > This cloaking mechanism is the 5MHz and 10MHz channel sizes that > > George was referring to on the Star WAR boards. Works really well and > > even > > seems to improve signal quality. > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Richard Goodin > > Sent: 11 April 2006 08:09 > > To: wireless@wispa.org > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > > > > > > > > Guys; > > These all sound great. I was reading just a couple months back about a > > WISP > > > > operator that had a severe problem. Just a few yards away, maybe 300 > > feet, > > another guy put up his tower. I think they were both on 2.4 GHZ, and > > someone suggested a different AP that would not even be detected by > > conventional systems. Something about nonstandard bandwidth, channel > > spacing or coding. I really feel that stealth is best here. These other > > guys have been in business for a while and could cause trouble that I do > > not > > > > need. >
Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP
heir standard what ever tyhat > may be, apposed to being locked into the vendor's opinion. > > Lonnie, StarOS is a great product, I'm not trying to say otherwise, nor am I > challenging the speed capabilties of the product. I'm jsut discussing test > variables. > > I admit, I tend to use Mikrotik more for my APs, because of the Virtual AP > feature. Why? Because it saves me $200 a month per radio on roof lease fees, > because I now can have one AP for all my wifi needs, instead of multiple APs > on the roof for various needs, and I only need one channels for all my > needs, instead of multiple channels for various needs. (Wep compatibilty > mode, WPA high security mode, HotSpot Free public access, VLAN protected > provisioning mode). It will be great when you get Virtual AP added to the > product. It gets hard for me to test performance between a StarOS client and > a Mikrotik AP, without a standardized test tool embedded in the radio. I got > Iperf on the cell servers. But I'd love to be able to test performance to > the CPE, without calling the customer to assist, and see the results I'm > getting on the spot. It puts me in a vulnerable possition SLA wise and > response time wise. > > You can take the advise or leave it. Just my 2 cents. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 7:33 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP > > > This may be the case, but the test we perform seems to describe what > we see in real life use. As long as you have consistency it does not > matter what you do. The ability to compare apples to apples is what > is truly important, and since we began to use TCP many years ago, we > still continue to do so, since it gives us a relevance and comparison > to the systems in current use. > > My TCP numbers are lower than you'll get with a UDP test, so I am > quite happy to compare my TCP to UDP because my TCP numbers are pretty > nearly as high as numbers I hear reported for other high end systems > that test with UDP. > > For instance, our TCP numbers on a WRAP board were always in the 23 > to 25 mbps range yet a UDP test would pull almost 35 mbps, which is a > number I have never seen even in my dreams doing an FTP transfer (with > the WRAP boards). Typical numbers were always in the 1,800 to 2,000 > KBytes/sec as reported by the FTP client. > > Our goal is to give you numbers you will see in real life. After all, > your user is going to be ragging on you based on the FTP results they > see. > > I am always amazed at how labels get applied. To call something a > lower grade product because of a test method sure indicates a > conclusion that needs to be re-examined. Results are what count, not > how pretty you look or how good you sound. > > We have come pretty close to the goal of real world numbers, so I am > not fazed at all by your lower grade product ranking. It is strange > to have to lie to the customer to get a high grade product rating. > Maybe we don't need that, and for the most part my users don't want it > either. > > > They don't want packet loss either. Most of them prefer to > >have the whole file delivered intact. > > Yes, but that really isn't a choice made or controled by the ISP, we deploy > in a dynamic environment that changes. I remember when I was green in this > industry, and rode my high horse, and stated, "Links should be engineered > for no packet loss from the beginning". In that is exactly what we did! But > environments change. When a competitor points a Radio at your cell site from > 300 yards away, packet loss occurs, nothing can be done about it on the > spot. re-engineering must take place to illiminate packetloss. How much > time will a WISP have to correct packet loss, before they lose their > subscriber? I can tell you that Trango ARQ, bought me months of time to get > around to making a re-engineering repair. The first step, is to realize the > performance of a link, to know how severe it is, and what steps need to be > made to correct it. Every tool in the toolbox, helps deal with running a > better operation as a WISP. > > > Regards, > Lonnie > > On 4/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lonnie, > > > > Unfortuneately, not having UDP tests, does not allow accurate results. The > > reason is that UDP will show the point at which packet loss will occur, > > and > > at what percentage. Without that similar data, a TCP test is pointl
Re: [WISPA] DAWN ...and Ken....ARRL Requests changes to Part 15 rules for 2.4GHz Systems]
One point to bring up is the fact that they request the band and privileges to do research and to further understanding and techniques yet they want an exemption from something which they say is quite difficult. I would say that is what research is all about and they would want to solve that problem. Also point out that high frequency communications research should be directed at low power communications. Any idiot can throw 100W amplifiers and get NLOS, but the true genius would be if the Hams can do the same thing with 100 mW. You should basically ask that they be reduced to 0.5 W in order to foster more research, since necessity is the mother of invention. With low power they will have to perfect their techniques and with 100 W they will just sit back and blast the spectrum. After all, they want to research and that is the basis of the whole proposal. Shoot that part down in flames by pointing out the inconsistencies of their request. Lonnie On 4/15/06, George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I should also say that it is being discussed and addressed by on the > wispa fcc committee list. > > George > > George wrote: > > Here is what I got from P15: > > > > > > On March 13, 2006, The ARRL has proposed a change in regulating spread > > spectrum power output. This will dramatically affect users of 802.11b/g in > > the 2.4 GHz frequency range. > > > > Basically the proposal allows amateur radio operators to run powers of 100 > > watts without automatic power control. In the 2.4 GHz band it could > > obliterate Wi-Fi channels for miles having a significant interference > > impact > > on WISP operations. > > > > PART-15.ORG is not in favor of such a change for various and numerous > > reasons. I urge each of you to review the filings and submit comments in > > opposition to the requested changes. > > > > PART-15.ORG will be filing our Opposition in about 10 days. Each of you are > > welcome to use our filing in support of your own. I'll make a public > > announcement of our filing when it is ready. Until then, I'm going to > > open a > > discussion on both the PART-15.ORG email lists and the new Forum. > > > > For more information on the ARRL filing: > > > > (1) http://www.broadbandwirelessreports.com/ > > > > Or > > > > (2) http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and enter RM-11325 in > > "Proceeding" box > > > > Regards > > Michael > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Weird problem - 20 seconds latency and other oddness
I suspect your system is bridged. Can you confirm that? Lonnie On 5/8/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay, Scriv and I are stumped on this one. Over the last couple of weeks, we've started seeing some very odd oddness on a few of our 2.4GHz POPs. Not all, just some. Here's what appears to be happening: A couple times a day, usually during business hours, something somewhere generates a massive amount of noise. Connections which report an RF noise of -90 start showing noise levels of -60 (or worse in some cases), as reported by our StarOS access point. If it really is RF noise, it's very broad, as it's simultaneously hitting five or six POPs, some several miles away, but all at the same time. The towers are all running StarOS on Mikrotik RouterBoard hardware, with a mix of Orinoco and Prism cards, some with amps, some not. Some have sectored antennas (180 degrees), some have omnis. Between them, the towers cover just about the entire 2.4 spectrum (obviously, one channel per access point, but we're using at least channels 1, 4, 6, 8, and 11). Those towers are basically identical to several other towers that aren't affected. The other really really weird part is the crazy latency. Pings to the APs themselves are reliable, and our backhaul links (5.3 and 5.8 GHz) don't seem to be affected. And pings to our end-customers don't seem to get lost, they just take their sweet time getting there. While "the event" is happening, I've seen pings that take in excess of twenty seconds to complete their round trip. 64 bytes from 10.232.175.130: icmp_seq=7 ttl=62 time=27239 ms (I think that's my record. In that particular test, there were no packets lost, they just took a very long time to get there.) I've checked or replaced just about everything I can think of in our network that might cause something like this, and frankly, I'm stumped. I don't think it's a network problem (traffic bursts or similar) because of the weird bursts of RF noise. But that'd have to be one helluva burst of noise to do what it's doing - affecting every channel across ten miles at once. I can go into more detail on any part of the network if you like, though I think all the likely-relevant details are covered here. Help! David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Weird problem - 20 seconds latency and other oddness
Any confirmation on this? A customer router plugged in with LAN to the WAN or not getting a DHCP entry or even a DNS entry has caused many bridges to collapse and appear as if it is noise, simply because the bridges are all echoing the massive broadcast traffic. Lonnie On 5/8/06, Lonnie Nunweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I suspect your system is bridged. Can you confirm that? Lonnie On 5/8/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, Scriv and I are stumped on this one. > > Over the last couple of weeks, we've started seeing some very odd > oddness on a few of our 2.4GHz POPs. Not all, just some. Here's what > appears to be happening: > > A couple times a day, usually during business hours, something somewhere > generates a massive amount of noise. Connections which report an RF > noise of -90 start showing noise levels of -60 (or worse in some cases), > as reported by our StarOS access point. If it really is RF noise, it's > very broad, as it's simultaneously hitting five or six POPs, some > several miles away, but all at the same time. > > The towers are all running StarOS on Mikrotik RouterBoard hardware, with > a mix of Orinoco and Prism cards, some with amps, some not. Some have > sectored antennas (180 degrees), some have omnis. Between them, the > towers cover just about the entire 2.4 spectrum (obviously, one channel > per access point, but we're using at least channels 1, 4, 6, 8, and 11). > > Those towers are basically identical to several other towers that aren't > affected. > > The other really really weird part is the crazy latency. Pings to the > APs themselves are reliable, and our backhaul links (5.3 and 5.8 GHz) > don't seem to be affected. And pings to our end-customers don't seem to > get lost, they just take their sweet time getting there. While "the > event" is happening, I've seen pings that take in excess of twenty > seconds to complete their round trip. > > 64 bytes from 10.232.175.130: icmp_seq=7 ttl=62 time=27239 ms > > (I think that's my record. In that particular test, there were no > packets lost, they just took a very long time to get there.) > > I've checked or replaced just about everything I can think of in our > network that might cause something like this, and frankly, I'm stumped. > I don't think it's a network problem (traffic bursts or similar) because > of the weird bursts of RF noise. But that'd have to be one helluva burst > of noise to do what it's doing - affecting every channel across ten > miles at once. > > I can go into more detail on any part of the network if you like, though > I think all the likely-relevant details are covered here. > > Help! > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Weird problem - 20 seconds latency and other oddness
I agree it could be noise but a bridge runaway will give you the 10+ second pings and with that much traffic being echoed ALL of your AP and Clients are spewing. It would look like a massive RF flood on the Spectrum Analyzer. Think about what the air wave look like when you have full radio usage. To nearby units and competitors it would be a massive increase in the noise floor. Lonnie On 5/9/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Any confirmation on this? A customer router plugged in with LAN to > the WAN or not getting a DHCP entry or even a DNS entry has caused > many bridges to collapse and appear as if it is noise, simply because > the bridges are all echoing the massive broadcast traffic. There's no DHCP anywhere on the network, and the DHCP UDP ports are filtered out at every POP, so that specifically is a bad example. :) Sorry for not getting back to this, we've had massive weirdness on our dialup gear too (mostly related to moving it). Yes, our network is part bridged/part routed. I'm pretty sure it's a real RF problem, because we pulled out the Bumblebee and my field guy said he saw crazy mad noise all across the 2.4 spectrum a couple days ago, when we were having this weird hiccup. (And another local WISP operator reportedly has had similar issues, though I didn't talk to him personally; that's the boss' department.) We'll probably just have to use some old-school triangulation and such to find out where it is, if it's something we even can find. For instance, today was a cool and cloudy day, and this problem didn't show up all day. Thus, I blame sunspots. :D (Honestly, I'm stumped, but at least we're now reasonably certain it's a real RF issue.) If/when we sort it out, I'll report back. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?
I doubt that my upstream provider has any records of my customer IP assignments, so it is my belief that any records keeping and logging would fall on me. I'm not big but I do NOT consider my operation as being run by piss ants either. Do you consider the majority of WISP's to be run by piss ants and not worthy of any recognition and responsibility? I sincerely hope not because I have no desire to be associated with such a group. Lonnie On 6/4/06, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wouldn't imagine that this responsibility would fall on us WISPs, but to our upstream providers like BellSouth...etc. Why would they want to deal with the 20,000 piss ants of the world when all they have to do is back up stream two hops and catch all the traffic? Common sense tells me this will not fall on us! Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060601/ts_nm/security_internet_usa_dc Why aren't we fighting tooth and nail to stop this kinda stuff? Or, is this issue like certain others, where WISPA founders take contrary positions to the rest of the members and side with big brother and encourage the feds to dig into and regulate our business, in some apparent hope of ingratiating themselves with the regulators? AT LEAST could we have the leadership tell us what THEY think of this? North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?
Just try and imagine how much storage you would require for 2 years worth of traffic. Guys are joking about it being good so they can get the Terabyte server they always wanted. How about when they have to buy 50 of them? Also consider the task of assigning IP addresses and maintaining that list to always be up to date and correct. If this requirement is made I do expect you will see an awful lot of guys stop doing this since the paperwork and records keeping would be an added chore and a possible huge expense. If you elect to ignore it if it is ever required expect to be asked to do jail time and pay huge fines. Make light of this all you want, but I believe that your smugness will not last long if it becomes a requirement. Lonnie On 6/4/06, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You have enough clients that it would bankrupt you to build a server to log your HTTP & SMTP traffic? I don't think it would be that difficult or expensive, but agree that it would be a major PITA! I am pretty sure we will never be faced with this as the majority of us aren't reliable enough to even set this up nor responsible enough to keep up with it reliably for two years. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? Common sense tells you that the big boys will lobby to force the last mile provider to log it all, so as to bankrupt the competition. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? > I wouldn't imagine that this responsibility would fall on us WISPs, but to > our upstream providers like BellSouth...etc. Why would they want to deal > with the 20,000 piss ants of the world when all they have to do is back up > stream two hops and catch all the traffic? Common sense tells me this will > not fall on us! > > > Mac > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:19 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this? > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060601/ts_nm/security_internet_usa_dc > > Why aren't we fighting tooth and nail to stop this kinda stuff? > > Or, is this issue like certain others, where WISPA founders take contrary > positions to the rest of the members and side with big brother and encourage > the feds to dig into and regulate our business, in some apparent hope of > ingratiating themselves with the regulators? > > AT LEAST could we have the leadership tell us what THEY think of this? > > North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 > personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net > sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net > Fast Internet, NO WIRES! > -- -- > - > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006
If you object to spam as much as you say you do, then why on earth would you send that spam to a list? Get a clue. Also, watch your language.LonnieOn 6/4/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone Else receiving these from these pricks ? JohnnyO -Original Message-From: APGWireless Info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:18 PMTo: 'Chris Russell'Cc: WISPA General ListSubject: RE: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 Please do NOT spam me any further in the future - I'd like to be removed from any and ALL lists ya'll have harvested from the WISP online forum/lists immediately. I've asked numerous times without any success. Regards, JohnnyO -- Lonnie NunweilerValemount Networks Corporationhttp://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006
To the Board: Is this behaviour condoned? Not only did he spam the list and use offensive language, but he now slanders all Canadian companies. Lonnie On 6/4/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ahhh my old good friend Lonnie :) How are you these days ? Get a clue . I did - don't buy from Canadian companies - they'll bend you over every chance they get :) Prick : please see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prick for a better run down on the term Lonnie. I did watch my language. Don't be so sensitive unless you fit the shoes... I know I do ! JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 If you object to spam as much as you say you do, then why on earth would you send that spam to a list? Get a clue. Also, watch your language. Lonnie On 6/4/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Anyone Else receiving these from these pricks ? > > JohnnyO > > > > -Original Message- > From: APGWireless Info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:18 PM > To: 'Chris Russell' > Cc: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 > > > Please do NOT spam me any further in the future - I'd like to be removed from any and ALL lists ya'll have harvested from the WISP online forum/lists immediately. I've asked numerous times without any success. > > Regards, > > JohnnyO > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006
You miss the point George. I am not fighting. I called Johnny on his actions and he immediately went personal and abusive. I rarely speak up anymore but I thought this was a critical misuse of the list. Are you saying it is appropriate for everyone to forward their spam to this list and use offensive language as they ask if anyone else got the spam? Is it then appropriate to try and defend one's actions by slandering a whole lot of people based on their country? Is this what WISPA is about and do the members condone such behaviour? Lonnie On 6/4/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At least you apologized Johnny, but it does get old watching people fight. Can't you guys just agree to not get along and ignore each other? George JohnnyO wrote: > Lonnie - my experiences and my opinions of Canadian companies are that > of my own. Apparently you're looking to make an ass out of both you and > I or else you wouldn't have responded the way you did Slander - not > even close. > > I KNOW DragonWave Harvested this list - Just like Tranzeo has harvested > this list as well in the past...and so has Trango ... They are Canadian > Companies who are spamming from the list addresses as of late. Should I > expect some email from StarOS anytime soon ? > > I won't continue this any further and if I offended you by asking the > list if the pricks at DragonWave (my opinion solely) are spamming others > as well, my appologies. > > If you don't accept my appology, you leave me no other choice then to > plea temporary insanity and appologize for my verbal offense which I did > not realize I committed nor was I aware of any such actions and any > future repetition of the above said that I may not be aware of. > > Regards, > > JohnnyO > > -----Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:03 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 > > > To the Board: > > Is this behaviour condoned? Not only did he spam the list and use > offensive language, but he now slanders all Canadian companies. > > Lonnie > > On 6/4/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>Ahhh my old good friend Lonnie :) How are you these days ? Get a clue >>. I did - don't buy from Canadian companies - they'll bend you >>over every chance they get :) >> >>Prick : please see >>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prick for a better run >>down on the term Lonnie. I did watch my language. Don't be so >>sensitive unless you fit the shoes... >> >>I know I do ! >> >> >>JohnnyO >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:53 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FW: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 >> >>If you object to spam as much as you say you do, then why on earth >>would you send that spam to a list? Get a clue. Also, watch your >>language. >> >>Lonnie >> >> >>On 6/4/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Anyone Else receiving these from these pricks ? >>> >>>JohnnyO >>> >>> >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: APGWireless Info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:18 PM >>>To: 'Chris Russell' >>>Cc: WISPA General List >>>Subject: RE: See what's new at DragonWave @ WCA 2006 >>> >>> >>>Please do NOT spam me any further in the future - I'd like to be >>>removed >> >>from any and ALL lists ya'll have harvested from the WISP online >>forum/lists immediately. I've asked numerous times without any >>success. >> >>>Regards, >>> >>>JohnnyO >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>Lonnie Nunweiler >>Valemount Networks Corporation >>http://www.star-os.com/ >> >>-- >>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> > > > -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 a device
Some assembly required. We do not put the antenna pieces together since the user would have to take them apart to attach the cat5. Lonnie On 6/8/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have to take that back. I'm not so sure they are already assembled and ready to go. They might fall under "some assembly required" Maybe Lonnie can tell us. George George Rogato wrote: > Lonnie sells his war in a rootenna waiting to go. > Support is offered via the online forums. > > George > > Matt Liotta wrote: >> I understand you are suggesting I wouldn't have to psychically build >> the devices, but that isn't what I am worried about. I want an >> off-the-shelf product that is supported by a vendor. That includes it >> being pre-built, software installed, and support available. >> >> -Matt >> >> Sam Tetherow wrote: >> >>> If you order it all from wisp-router they will assemble it for your >>> so you would get a die-cast case with the RB mounted the radios and >>> pigtails installed. All you would need to do is set up the software >>> end of things, which could be done with a script once you have the >>> initial setup done. One thing to note, I have not ordered 5Ghz >>> pigtails from wisp-router in quite sometime, but the last time I did >>> order them, their quality was questionable. >>> >>> I would bet if you went the WRAP/StarOS route wisp-router would do >>> the same. No idea on other vendors or the WAR boards as I have never >>> ordered them. >>> >>>Sam Tetherow >>>Sandhills Wireless >>> >>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>> >>>> I am looking for a device I can buy that does all of this out of the >>>> box. I don't want to build my own since I need 30-40 of them in the >>>> next 30 days. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mikrotik on a routerboard 532 should do the trick although I >>>>> haven't messed with the VLAN stuff. >>>>> I am not a StarOS user, but I would bet that a StarOS setup on >>>>> either a WRAP or WAR board would work >>>>> as well. >>>>> >>>>>Sam Tetherow >>>>>Sandhills Wireless >>>>> >>>>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am looking for a device with the following requirements: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Can backhaul at >11Mbps operating in the 5.2Ghz band >>>>>> * Can support VLANs >>>>>> * Can assign a VLAN to one Ethernet port >>>>>> * Powered by PoE (the standard is not required) >>>>>> * Can act as a 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi access point assigned to a different >>>>>> VLAN than the Ethernet port >>>>>> * Everything in a single outdoor enclosure >>>>>> >>>>>> Any ideas? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 a device
Sure switched is faster than routed, if you have a 100 mbps cat5 or 1 gbps fibre network. If you have a radio based network then routing or switching will be about the same speed. Our routed performance is actually slightly higher than our bridged performance. Lonnie On 6/13/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The delay in switching a packet at hardware is less than the delay in routing a packet at software. This is 1 of the reasons that Cisco created the G"S"R and why an MPL"S" switched network is fast than a plain routed network. I'm not too interested in convergence times as we only have very minimal outages so RSTP should suffice. How fast a packet can traverse our network on the other hand is important so that we can reliably run VoIP and other delay/jitter sensitive applications. Anyone compared a routed solution with a Mikrotik bridged solution for delay/jitter? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: 13 June 2006 13:26 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for a device Paul Hendry wrote: >We too have been looking at moving from routed to a switched Mikrotik for >the core network but the unknown quantity seems to be if there are any >latency or speed issues related to the move. A "true" switched network is >faster than a routed network as the switching is done at a hardware level >but in Mikrotik I believe both switching and routed is done in software. >What have you seen? > > > Faster in what way? Certainly, a routed network is going to beat a switched network in terms of covergence speed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.3/362 - Release Date: 12/06/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, I just wanted to make sure you disable connection tracking. It is not required for a bridge or backhaul situation and you'll see a few per cent better throughput. Also, our routed performance exceeds the bridged throughput, so the best is using routed without connection tracking. Lonnie On 6/22/06, Charles Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.png Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU load http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? On or offlist, I am curious if you'd be willing to share your settings required to achieve this (both hardware and software) 38 Mbps TCP throughput on a 20 MHz channel w/ 54 Mb air rate is quite impressive, and I would like to try to duplicate these results if possible (I'd more than happy to share our testing scripts, platform, etc) Thus far, our Mikrotik testing has been limited to routerboards, and it seems that the limited processing power on the routerboard prevents us from seeing the benefits Nstream (our current testing w/ Nstream has actually shown decreased performance as opposed to just straight WDS bridging, but we are by no means Mikrotik experts) That said, compared to the rest of Mikrotik, the documentation surrounding Nstream is a bit sparse -- looking at what is available, it seems to me that most of the performance gains of Nstream are achieved through "fast-framing" -- e.g., it looks like Nstream utilizes combination of timing modications and frame concatenation to increase throughput by transmitting more data per frame and removing interframe pauses. My understanding of this is that Nstream is bundling several frames (depending on settings, default of 3200 looks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amount SIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. What are the parameters for the framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on this side w/ Nstream? 4. What about bursting? The DIF is another major point of "waste" in 802.11 systems. Is the DIFs automagically eliminated due to the fact that a point coordinator is being implemented or is this done via the burst-time command under the wireless interface? If so, is there a way to turn this off for point-to-point situations to achieve better performance? -Charles P.S. -- Our testing of StarOS using WDS bridging on the 266 MHz IXP Boards is yielding ~36 Mb of TCP throughput on a single 20 Mhz channel (this is w/ bursting & frame concatenation turned on) --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
oks like it has enough space for 2 frames) together into a single larger frame; in the case of 2 for 1 bundling, this would essentially halve the amount SIFs and ACKs that the protocol has to transmit for a given payload So a few observations/questions for either you (or maybe John will speak up?) 1. Nstream has the ability to set this framing concatenation mechanism (via framer-policy attribute) to none -- if this is set to 0, will there be any performance differences b/n Nstream and "standard WiFi" 2. What are the parameters for the framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to concatenate 3 packets and eliminate additional overhead?) 3. While frame concatenation does improve throughput for low density situations -- in high density PtMP situations, we've seen multiple small packet streams basically bring polling-based systems to their knees -- is there any data, testing, experiences on this side w/ Nstream? 4. What about bursting? The DIF is another major point of "waste" in 802.11 systems. Is the DIFs automagically eliminated due to the fact that a point coordinator is being implemented or is this done via the burst-time command under the wireless interface? If so, is there a way to turn this off for point-to-point situations to achieve better performance? -Charles P.S. -- Our testing of StarOS using WDS bridging on the 266 MHz IXP Boards is yielding ~36 Mb of TCP throughput on a single 20 Mhz channel (this is w/ bursting & frame concatenation turned on) --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo WDS capacity, Mikrotik - problems
ge - > From: "Chad Halsted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:46 PM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Tranzeo WDS capacity, Mikrotik - problems > > > No personal experience on the X10, but from what I here, it will give > you nightmares. > > Seems like I heard Marlon speak such wonderful things about the x10 > before, eh Marlon? > > -90 signal is never a good thing. We won't do an install unless it's > -75 or better. Sometimes even a -75 isn't strong enough to combat all > the interference we have in town. > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jason Hensley > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:36 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Tranzeo WDS capacity, Mikrotik - problems > > I've got a two AP WDS setup with Tranzeo TR-6000's with PacWireless 13db > omni's on each. They are less than a mile apart. Any idea how many > CPE's > can run on each AP before it starts causing issues? We're going to be > replacing the WDS setup with an actual backhaul soon, but just haven't > gotten it done yet. > > I'm having trouble with performance. Works fine for awhile and then it > seems to bog down, and then back to normal again. I've got about 10 > clients > (all Tranzeo gear) on each of the AP's. I wouldn't think that this > would > cause issues but I may be wrong. Signal between the WDS connections is > around the -65 mark so that's no problem. I've got a couple of > marginal > clients (running -90 or so) so I'm wondering if these could possibly be > causing it. Everything is horizontal pol. > > When the service completely drops out I can get to the AP's just fine > from > the client end, but can't get to the router (RB532). I've switched out > cabling, switches, etc with no luck. Have a new 532 on the way so I'm > going > to switch it out as well and see what happens, but anyone have any other > > thoughts? > > Also, anyone have experience with an X10 camera shutting down their > network? > > Thanks! > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 900's and SR9's
We are awaiting our own shipment but customers have reported good results with WAR boards and the new V3 for x86 WRAP boards. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Rick Harnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, has anyone successfully deployed the Tranzeo 900 solution with SR9's yet? Mikrotik, Ikarus or Star-OS? I'm looking for real results so I can start making decisions. Thanks, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Outgrowing your AP
We use multiple 16 dB sectors that give me 65 degrees of coverage. I can run channel 1, 6, and 11 with no problems. Most customers can see at least 2 AP units so I have my choice of which one to connect them to. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Ryan Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am quickly outgrowing my current AP. I currently have an AP on the side of a mountain with all of my clients within 1 90* sector. How do I add an AP without blasting myself away with my own signal? Do I put 2 APs up there with 45* sectors on them? Do I put 2 APs up there with 90* sectors and use 2 different channels? Any input on this would be useful. thanks, ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 900's and SR9's
Whoa, bad assumption Rick. We would never be waiting for anything from Tranzeo. I was saying we are awaiting our first batch of SR9 for evaluation and our own network, but that many of our customers have already tested SR9's with our software, and they report excellent results with both the WAR board and the new V3 code for WRAP boards. The Tranzeo should talk with an SR9 since they both use an Atheros base. The only trouble will be the driver and that I can't speak to. Lonnie On 8/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, To clarify please, I assume your saying that you are awaiting your first shipment of Tranzeo 900's for your own usebut others have already deployed WAR Boards V3 or WRAPs with the Tranzeo 900 solution. Is that correct? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 900's and SR9's We are awaiting our own shipment but customers have reported good results with WAR boards and the new V3 for x86 WRAP boards. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Rick Harnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, has anyone successfully deployed the Tranzeo 900 solution with SR9's > yet? Mikrotik, Ikarus or Star-OS? I'm looking for real results so I can > start making decisions. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rick Harnish > > President > > OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. > > 260-827-2482 > > Founding Member of WISPA > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
ey pulled them off production due to the NOISE they are blowing all over the 50-450Mhz spectrum. :( Travis Microserv Kelly Shaw wrote: Anyone know of a source with RouterBoard 532s in stock? I normally can get them from WispRouter but they won't respond to my phone calls about them... Kelly Shaw Pure Internet www.pure.net <http://www.pure.net> __ NOD32 1.1657 (20060713) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com !DSPAM:16,44b6c32336811364511223! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=9130 Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Mac Dearman wrote: Where did you get that info from Travis? Links, source...etc? Mac Dearman *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:58 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532s Maybe they pulled them off production due to the NOISE they are blowing all over the 50-450Mhz spectrum. :( Travis Microserv Kelly Shaw wrote: Anyone know of a source with RouterBoard 532s in stock? I normally can get them from WispRouter but they won't respond to my phone calls about them... Kelly Shaw Pure Internet www.pure.net <http://www.pure.net> __ NOD32 1.1657 (20060713) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com !DSPAM:16,44b6c32336811364511223! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. >V3 has support for a fully transparent > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system. That is good news! > License Fee after 1 year. The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed or possibly for passing MPLS). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
It's work in progress. I have found can't estimate software development timelines very well and people get upset when I am wrong, so I quit making predictions a long time ago. What I can say is we are actively working on it and it will happen as soon as we can. Also I can say to take the past as a predictor that it will happen. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Gino A. Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So.. Lonnie, got a timeframe for this ? thanks 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 Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. > > >V3 has support for a fully transparent > > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system. > > That is good news! > > > License Fee after 1 year. > > The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > > > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. > > Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused > between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the > Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of > VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU > above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed > or possibly for passing MPLS). > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
Tom, The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards have limits in the 2K to 4K range. We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR version. I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and rip) for free. We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB. It took a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being patient. Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new release can do. Lonnie On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a public announcement. If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote the feature. Thanks. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people > can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some > vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each > one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. > > Lonnie > > On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lonnie, >> >> I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. >> >> >V3 has support for a fully transparent >> > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP >> > system. >> >> That is good news! >> >> > License Fee after 1 year. >> >> The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. >> >> > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every >> > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. >> >> Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused >> between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the >> Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition >> of >> VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU >> above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU >> allowed >> or possibly for passing MPLS). >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
I'm not sure I understand the question. The Atheros card already does packet aggregation and compression. We have tested with and without the features and it does make a difference, with the better numbers once the features are enabled. We would not be planning on adding this for Ethernet. Lonnie On 8/17/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So with this MTU increase is there any chance of packet aggregation so we can make use of it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: 17 August 2006 07:24 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 Tom, The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards have limits in the 2K to 4K range. We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR version. I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and rip) for free. We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB. It took a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being patient. Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new release can do. Lonnie On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a > public announcement. > If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote > the feature. > Thanks. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > > > It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people > > can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some > > vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each > > one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. > > > > Lonnie > > > > On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Lonnie, > >> > >> I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. > >> > >> >V3 has support for a fully transparent > >> > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP > >> > system. > >> > >> That is good news! > >> > >> > License Fee after 1 year. > >> > >> The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > >> > >> > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > >> > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. > >> > >> Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused > >> between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the > >> Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition > >> of > >> VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU > >> above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU > >> allowed > >> or possibly for passing MPLS). > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > > -- > > Lonnie Nunweiler > > Valemount Networks Corporation > > http://www.star-os.com/ > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lis
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
sk top) back into your network to see what's going on. The biggest advantage to privates on infrastructure is NO HACKING from China...etc. Give only public IPs to those who have a need and willing to pay a little extra for the ability. VPNs work even though they are behind NAT. I would also encourage you to keep your bandwidth shaping at the head end of your network for convenience and easy back up. They can only send data as fast as you allow them irregardless of where you do traffic shaping. The PC will slow down the data it is sending thru your network to match what you set there speed to be and it does not create a traffic jam on your network - - as some would make you believe. I realize this will take subnetting to make it happen. I've got a /24 right now and can easily bump to more when needed. I have a huge network right now and only have 2 /24's and 2 /27's, but I don't give public IP's to anyone who don't pay for them so 90% of my clients have a private IP. If more public IP's are easy to get – get them! Once again the greatest advantage of private IPs is the lack of the rest of the world to hack on our clients. How are the rest of you handling your setups like this? Half of my network is static routed and half is completely bridged. Which one is faster? The bridged! Which one is easier to maintain? The bridged! Which one is easier to add clients to? The bridged! Tell me – is the internet bridged or routed? It is a combination of both! Routers are only used where routers are needed and if you counted the routers –vs- switches on the fiber backbone of the internet which do you think have the greatest population? I see it the same way on my network - - I will route where I need a router and use a good switch and a VLAN everywhere else. Let the games begin :-) Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4181 Jason Hensley, MCP+I President Mozarks Technologies 909 Preacher Roe Blvd West Plains, MO 65775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mozarks.com 417.256.7946 417.257.2415 (fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
a router and use a good switch and a VLAN everywhere else. > > > > Let the games begin :-) > > > > > > Mac Dearman > > Maximum Access, LLC. > > Rayville, La. > > www.inetsouth.com > > www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) > > www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) > > 318.728.8600 > > 318.728.9600 > > 318.303.4181 > > > > Jason Hensley, MCP+I > President > > Mozarks Technologies > 909 Preacher Roe Blvd > West Plains, MO 65775 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mozarks.com > > 417.256.7946 > 417.257.2415 (fax) > > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a larger server. Lonnie On 8/23/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the > best. Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you remove BGP support from V3? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
Are you actually carrying your traffic, with your own approved public IP assignment to several carriers and they accept and route that traffic to and from the Internet? Any time I requested that it was a very expensive proposition to have and they also only did large blocks of publics. I guess times have changed. We have our network carrying our traffic to several feed points and we do nat at that time. Using policy routing and mesh we deliver to any number of available ADSL lines and T1 connections. Lonnie On 8/24/06, Mark Koskenmaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my case, all "servers" are in boxes in the air, on the roof, or otherwise. BGP needs to be in the regular AP version. - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network > We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was > for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a > larger server. > > Lonnie > > On 8/23/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > > > > > We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the > > > best. > > > > Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you > > remove BGP support from V3? > > > > David Smith > > MVN.net > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing ProtocolsL Was: Managing CPE in routed network
t; > > > > > I understand this question as only another etherant/Tranzeo CPE user > > would > > :) Once you enter a routed environment on the backhaul or otherwise > > - your scan utility will not scan but to the first router where it > > will loose its ability to go any farther as the scan tool uses > > broadcast packets to seek its objects and the router kills broadcast packets. > > You will have to log every IP on your network and access the > > antennas via HTTP. (web interface) The scan tool will still be > > functional at each individual tower and will capture the antennas on > > the wireless AP you are > attached to at the moment. > > If you maintain a bridged network w/VLANS then the scan tool and > > everything else will work as it does now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I would ideally like to have a public IP assigned to each CPE. > > The double NAT'ing I've got going right now has been causing a few > > issues, plus, I'm getting more business customers that want VPN and > > Remote Access to their network. > > > > > > > > I would NOT use public IPs for CPE, but I try to use public IPs for > > my infrastructure. Its one of those deals where we all have our own > > beliefs, If you use private IPs then you would need to do a VPN or > > RDP (remote desk top) back into your network to see what's going on. > > The biggest advantage to privates on infrastructure is NO HACKING > > from China...etc. Give only public IPs to those who have a need and > > willing to pay a little extra for the ability. VPNs work even though > > they are behind NAT. I would also encourage you to keep your > > bandwidth shaping at the head end of your network for convenience > > and easy back up. They can only send data as fast as you allow them > > irregardless of where you do traffic shaping. The PC will slow down > > the data it is sending thru your network to match what you set there > > speed to be and it does not create a traffic jam on your network - - as some would make you believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > I realize this will take subnetting to make it happen. I've got a > > /24 right now and can easily bump to more when needed. > > > > > > > > I have a huge network right now and only have 2 /24's and 2 /27's, > > but I don't give public IP's to anyone who don't pay for them so 90% > > of my clients have a private IP. If more public IP's are easy to get > > - get them! Once again the greatest advantage of private IPs is the > > lack of the rest of the world to hack on our clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are the rest of you handling your setups like this? > > > > > > > > Half of my network is static routed and half is completely bridged. > > Which one is faster? The bridged! Which one is easier to maintain? > > The > bridged! > > Which one is easier to add clients to? The bridged! Tell me - is the > > internet bridged or routed? It is a combination of both! Routers are > > only used where routers are needed and if you counted the routers > > -vs- switches on the fiber backbone of the internet which do you > > think have the greatest population? I see it the same way on my > > network - - I will route where I need a router and use a good switch > > and a VLAN everywhere > else. > > > > > > > > Let the games begin :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Mac Dearman > > > > Maximum Access, LLC. > > > > Rayville, La. > > > > www.inetsouth.com > > > > www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) > > > > www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) > > > > 318.728.8600 > > > > 318.728.9600 > > > > 318.303.4181 > > > > > > > > Jason Hensley, MCP+I > > President > > > > Mozarks Technologies > > 909 Preacher Roe Blvd > > West Plains, MO 65775 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.mozarks.com > > > > 417.256.7946 > > 417.257.2415 (fax) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a > pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long > distances. > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the > deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building > owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a > tough rule to deal with. > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person > at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for > the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band > due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > Thoughts? > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon and Lonnie, > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > Trango :-) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have > > protection against that. > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good > > Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the > > potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the > > rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives > > us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things > > is a good thing to try to do. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Can you tell me the frequencies in the 6 GHz bands that are desired? Are there any modulation limits, as to bandwidth and power output? What sort of distances are typically involved? A 6 foot dish can push a signal a very long distance or have a very high signal at a shorter distance. Lonnie On 8/6/05, A. Huppenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $20K is about right for the radios for a licensed path. $500 to $2000 > for the path analysis and license. > > The market has set that price. If 200 ISPs that belong to WISPA > indicated their interest.. Well Lonnie might make them or someone else. > The chipsets are there to operate in those bands, getting the FCC to > allow them to be used in that band is a challenge. > > Whatever anyone wants to say about improve our effiency in using > existing spectrum, we need to be fighting for more at this point, since > there will be a swell of DSL users moving to Fixed wireless over the > next year, as Telcos attempt to dominate that marketplace. Which will > in-turn cause more congestion on the airwaves. That and the > Anti-competitive actions of telcos - pricing below cost, are the two > areas I recommend we all focus on. > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > > > Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) > > for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a > > couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's > > standards. > > > > Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. > > Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If > > you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. > > It's just that simple. > > > > I honestly see few down sides to this idea. > > > > I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. > > So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm > > more than a bit shocked. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > >> Marlon and Lonnie, > >> > >> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > >> suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do > >> poor designs. > >> > >> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially > >> in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access > >> to every ounce of spectrum that we can. > >> > >> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a > >> way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot > >> antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use > >> the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and > >> could have need for the band. However doing away with the large > >> antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band > >> with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the > >> rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, > >> what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft > >> dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting > >> approval for a 3 ft dish. > >> > >> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market > >> today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we > >> are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, > >> that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking > >> about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > >> List" &
Re: [WISPA] The climb safe thread
> > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.11/74 - Release Date: 8/17/2005 > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The climb safe thread
I agree. If you have ever seen one come down you know that it should be built correctly, and not by some guy who is cheap and dirty. A poorly constructed or installed tower can do much property damage and can even kill. I think common sense is great, but professional sense with respect to technical or trade things is better. If you do not wish to take a complete safety course why not approach your local fire dept and see if they would give some pointers at least. Join a rock climbing club and really get into it. The same issues are there when you are hanging on to a rock face and a slip or fall means certain death. Lonnie On 8/17/05, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.comtrainusa.com/Tower%20Tech/ttech.htm > While we're on the topic, wouldn't it be best to take this class too? If > your climbing towers, you should know how to build one. That is the only > way you might determine if one is safe to climb. > > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Not sure if you want to modify your advice of "tie-of and sit down on the > harness seat, and regain your wind / strength" after you read the following > link. It is potentially dangerous advice if you are not aware of the dangers > in doing > so. http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/Safety-HTML/HTML/Will-Your-Safety-Harness-Kill-You~20040119.htm Lonnie On > 8/17/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are some of the alternative good training programs other than > Comtrain? My advice as a novice, is... Don't underestimate the strength > it takes to climb to higher heights. Once you realize that its to far for > your physique its to late, you still have the hardest part left, going back > down again! The last thing you want to be doing is hyperventilating at the > top of a tower. Don't be afraid to tie-of and sit down on the harness seat, > and regain your wind / strength. When you climb tired, its easy to get > sloppy and under estimate where you are grabbing. Start out with shorter > height excersizes to get familiar with the process and problems you will > encounter. Simple problems get complicated, when you need at least one of > the two hands to hold on. Issues such as where do you put the screws so you > don't drop them, and can find them again when they need to get screwed back > again. How do you keep your bucket from catching on things. What length do > you need your tie-off lanyards adjusted to, to be comfortable. How do you > hold the antenna, and screw it on at the same time, and hold on? You learn > to use your tie offs optimally, and your legs. Most importantly DON"T go > climbing alone! Have the ground people do as much work as possible, to save > the climber's strength. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: > Brian Rohrbacher To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 > 12:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] The climb safe thread Maybe I can't afford > training, or maybe I don't want to allocate the funds for training. Either > way, there are more people out there just like me. Since I was recently > informed about my lack of common sense climbing, I figured a thread needs to > be started. Everyone please post any pointers you you can think of that > would benefit someone who lacks common sense. Anything from jumping into > the back of a truck, ladder climbing, roof walking, tower monkey tips, > procedure, gear, weather, what to haul up strapped to your back, pulleys to > use, rope, ect.. I'm just an accident waiting to happen. =-O Everyone > reading this understands that the opinions about to be given are just that > and you should get "real" training before attempting any climbing. :-P > http://www.comtrainusa.com/CoursesAvailable.htm > G.Villarini wrote: Ohhh ok, jeje! > Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband > Corp. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original > Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > George > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:58 AM To: WISPA General > List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Lanyard and positioning straps (last chance > tosave > mylife) Brian is 21. Kurt is in high school. Guess I mushed them > together :) > George G.Villarini wrote: > 21 and high school? George, you flunked kindergarten 3 times ? :-) > Gino A. > Villarini, > Aeronet Wireless Broadband > Corp. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466 -Original > Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > George > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:22 AM To: WISPA General >
Re: [WISPA] The climb safe thread
The time to rescue is the next best thing to not having the incident in the first place. Any mistake on a tower is a whole world of hurt. Lonnie On 8/17/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > Interesting Arcticle. > > First, I want to correct a previous statement. What I wrote was not what I > meant. When I was suggesting using the seat, I didn't mean actually sit > down, what I meant was use the seat. I use the lanyard to attach at the seat > side D-Rings, and lean back so my legs and straps share the weight instead > of my arms. In this possition it is easy to rest and regain strength. > > What I didn't know, and found interesting in the arcticle posted was: > > "Third, the harness keeps the worker in an upright position, regardless of > loss of consciousness, which is what kills workers." > > I never knew that. I was under the impression that if the head got cocked > back or cocked down, that it would restrict airflow, or if person got > inverted, blood rrush to their head and die, therefore upright was best. > > But after reading that, It sounds like to me that if you go unconcious, you > are screwed any way you rest, and really the only positive option to save a > person is shortening the time to complete the rescue. Any advice on the > preferred way to hang if you are unconcious? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:24 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] The climb safe thread > > > Not sure if you want to modify your advice of "tie-of and sit down on > the harness seat, and regain your wind / strength" after you read the > following link. It is potentially dangerous advice if you are not > aware of the dangers in doing so. > > http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/Safety-HTML/HTML/Will-Your-Safety-Harness-Kill-You~20040119.htm > > Lonnie > > On 8/17/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What are some of the alternative good training programs other than > > Comtrain? > > > > My advice as a novice, is... > > > > Don't underestimate the strength it takes to climb to higher heights. Once > > you realize that its to far for your physique its to late, you still have > > the hardest part left, going back down again! The last thing you want to > > be > > doing is hyperventilating at the top of a tower. Don't be afraid to tie-of > > and sit down on the harness seat, and regain your wind / strength. When > > you > > climb tired, its easy to get sloppy and under estimate where you are > > grabbing. > > > > Start out with shorter height excersizes to get familiar with the process > > and problems you will encounter. Simple problems get complicated, when > > you > > need at least one of the two hands to hold on. Issues such as where do you > > put the screws so you don't drop them, and can find them again when they > > need to get screwed back again. How do you keep your bucket from catching > > on things. What length do you need your tie-off lanyards adjusted to, to > > be > > comfortable. How do you hold the antenna, and screw it on at the same > > time, > > and hold on? You learn to use your tie offs optimally, and your legs. > > Most > > importantly DON"T go climbing alone! Have the ground people do as much > > work > > as possible, to save the climber's strength. > > > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Brian Rohrbacher > > To: WISPA General List > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:23 PM > > Subject: [WISPA] The climb safe thread > > > > Maybe I can't afford training, or maybe I don't want to allocate the funds > > for training. Either way, there are more people out there just like me. > > Since I was recently informed about my lack of common sense climbing, I > > figured a thread needs to be started. > > Everyone please post any pointers you you can think of that would benefit > > someone who lacks common sense. > > Anything from jumping into the back of a truck, ladder climbing, roof > > walking, tower monkey tips, procedure, gear, weather, what to haul up > > strapped to your back, pulleys to use, rope, ect.. > > I'm just an accident waiting to happen. =-O > > > > Everyone reading this u
Re: [WISPA] u seen this ?
If it sets the priority bits on everything it will be an awesome boost in speed UNTIL everybody else starts doing it. Then there will be no way to get VOIP or any other traffic boosted. How to wreck it for everybody in one easy to use product. Lonnie On 8/21/05, G.Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.hawkingtech.com/products/productlist.php?CatID=36&FamID=80&ProdID=216 > > > > seems like a qos device > > > > Gino A. Villarini, > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.aeronetpr.com > > 787.767.7466 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Rohn BX Tower
http://bold98.org/gallery/ProjectsTower Please read this and the manual from the site. You do not have nearly enough concrete for the base. Lonnie On 8/21/05, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I dug a hole 32 inch square by 42 inches deep yesterday for a rohn bx > tower. It is 5 sections of 8 ft. I just got 15 bags of portland cement and > will add my own gravel. > I was thinking about three 1 1/2 inch pieces of pipe stuck in the concrete to > bolt the tower legs to. I will > thread and put couplers on the pipe at 22 inches so they can't move. I've > got some re-bar to chuck down in the hole too. > I've got 3 8ft ground rods and will bond with #4 bare stranded wire. I > picked up a load of grade 8 bolts, > washers, and lock washers for bolting the tower together and to the pipe > stubs. Anyone have any suggestions > for me? This is my first tower. I will pour tomorrow afternoon. > > brian > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Taking on an investor?
;>>>> > >>>>>> -Original Message- > >>>>>> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian > >>>>>> Rohrbacher > >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2005 8:05 PM > >>>>>> *To:* WISPA General List > >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Taking on an investor? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, I guess I found four "dumb" people that got me > >>>>>> started. All my start up funds came from 4 people. All > >>>>>> four were subs from a previous WISP I owned, (before my > >>>>>> partner took everything over and left me out in the cold) > >>>>>> they all said, "I want you providing service, not the "other > >>>>>> guy". So here I am. 7 months in and going strong. Oh, > >>>>>> almost forgot, like my lawyer has me say..all that is > >>>>>> just my opinion. ;-) I think "dumb" investors > >>>>>> are great! > >>>>>> Charles Wu wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>> a passive minority equity position stake in a > >>>>>>> privately > >>>>>>> held company is worthless, as legally, the person with the > >>>>>>> majority stake can make 100% of the decisions (in terms of > >>>>>>> purchasing, spending, cash distribution, etc) > >>>>>>> think about it, if it was your money, would you > >>>>>>> be willing > >>>>>>> to just "invest it" into a company when the majority > >>>>>>> partner can do whatever he/she wants to and you have no > >>>>>>> recourse? > >>>>>>> -Charles > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> WISPNOG Park City, UT > >>>>>>> http://www.wispnog.com <http://www.wispnog.com/> > >>>>>>> August 15-17, 2005 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Original Message- > >>>>>>> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of > >>>>>>> *Dylan Oliver > >>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2005 4:10 PM > >>>>>>> *To:* WISPA General List > >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Taking on an investor? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Charles, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> would you expand on that? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 8/22/05, *Charles Wu* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> FWIW...no invester (other than friends and family) > >>>>>>> worth their salt will be > >>>>>>> willing to invest capital into the company for a > >>>>>>> minority position, as that > >>>>>>> is basically a sure way to guarantee the loss of > >>>>>>> their money > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That said, there is a fool born every day > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Charles > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- Dylan Oliver > >>>>>>> Primaverity, LLC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>>>>>> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: > >>>>>>> 8/22/2005 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>>>>> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: > >>>>>> 8/22/2005 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >>>>> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: > >>>>> 8/22/2005 > >>>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/80 - Release Date: > >> 8/23/2005 > >> > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a > Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because > large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN > custoemrs to untag > > In summary... > > 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP > line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home > brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type > projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so > what. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
Our test uses large packets and TCP. The problem is that the bandwidth tester consumes a lot of the CPU, so the solution is to test between machines on the edges, and thus get the true throughput without the limitations of CPU speed. Lots of guys have used desktop machines and found that the actually Atheros output can exceed 100 mbps in Turbo mode. Of course that sort of test cannot be done through an Ethernet, it is radio to radio. The advanced features of the Atheros cards will do packet aggregation for the system. Thus you will not notice any system trouble with a bunch of small packets as you get with VOIP and gaming. That type of traffic can bring a Prism system to its knees. The new StarVx also honours the VOIP priority bits in the headers. Lonnie On 10/10/05, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about > > 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU > > mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a > > quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and > > encryption turned off. > > > > Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 > > mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. > > Sounds about right, give or take a couple Mbps. I've got one link > consisting of two WRAP boards, StarOS/WRAP edition, with CM-9 radio cards. > Signal is about -60, noise floats around the mid-90s. The two endpoints > are probably about 1/4 mile apart. > > StarOS's integrated bandwidth test shows about 14Mbps each way. (You have > to do both send and receive tests, from both units, to get good average > numbers, because sending the packets seems to seriously stress those > little tiny CPUs.) > > In my experience, it seems as though StarOS' numbers are very optimistic > (anywhere from 10% to 25% higher than real-world traffic). Having never > sniffed the traffic or anything, I'd guess that the bandwidth test uses > large packets (maybe even jumbo packets), but real-world IP traffic has a > lot of smaller packets, and the per-packet overhead brings down total > performance. (This is part of why many people are fond of Mikrotik's > proprietary Nstreme extension - if you can live with a couple extra > milliseconds of latency, you can get substantially better throughput by > bundling all those tiny VOIP and UDP packets together.) > > When using the StarOS built-in tester, the sending unit's CPU will hit > 100%, and the receiver's CPU hits 75% or higher, on WRAP boards. This > implies that the CPU may be the bottleneck, not the radio card or the OS. > > > My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, > > or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher > > processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? > > Get back to me in a week or two on that. :) I've gotten my hands on a > couple RB532s, and a couple extra CM-9s. Admittedly, it won't be a > completely fair test, since the RouterBoards will be running RouterOS, so > it's not a perfect comparison to Valemount's StarOS. But it's the best I > can do. > > Since the WRAPs don't have that much horsepower to begin with, in relative > terms, and since these tests pegs the CPU gauge, I suspect CPU is the > limiting factor, but I don't have any hard numbers to back this up either > way. > > Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified > StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? For that matter, anyone ever just > slapped a miniPCI-PCI converter in some cheap Dell desktop and slammed > packets through it? > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
The SSH interface was started for StarVX but that bit of code added MORE than the size of the current image, which is just pushing 1.5 MB. We will be building a web interface as an option to the GUI. Our goal is to stay under 2 MB and be able to run on some real tiny systems. Lonnie On 10/10/05, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > George wrote: > > >> Anyone picked up one of Valemount's new WAR boards and their modified > >> StarOS distribution for them (StarVX)? > > > > Yeppers, I have a couple of PtP links using the WAR StarVX. > > Using cloaking, 5 and 10MHz channel spacing in 5 gig. > > > > http://www.oregonfast.net/gofast/WAR/10MHz%20war%20test%201%20way.JPG > > Gah. Is that... a Windows GUI? > > Just what I need, another interface to learn. Someone pester Lonnie and > tell him to make StarVX look like StarOS so I can just slap stuff in and > go. :D > > David Smith > MVN.net > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz interference
Are you sure the interference is caused by the other dish? We have systems much closer than 15 foot apart and see no ill effects. With all the other gear on that tower could you in fact be seeing interference from something else? Lonnie On 10/28/05, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys and gals, > > > >Just seeing if anyone has any advise when mounting more than 1 > antenna in the same frequency range on a tower. We have just installed a > 5.8GHz 120" vert sector at about 47m. Already on the same side of the tower > @ 42m is a 2 foot vert dish also running 5.8GHz. Both are pointing in > roughly the same direction and there is 4 channels separation between them. > I read somewhere on this list that 5 foot separation should be enough but I > am seeing major interference. We have a horizontal dish also on this tower > for a critical link so changing the dish to horizontal is not an option. > Also, the tower is full of high frequency dishes and mobile antennas so > there isn't much chance of moving either antennas to a different height. > Anyone got any ideas?? > > > > Cheers, > > > > P. > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/2005 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz interference
We use 3 foot dishes and 21 dB patches, and yes they point in roughly the same direction. We don't have that many 120 sectors so I have no experience. The 21 dB patches are only 12 degrees wide so maybe that is part of why we see such low interaction. Lonnie On 10/28/05, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe so as all the other kit is either mobile operators or +28GHz > although I haven't fully tested yet. However, I do know that if I set the > new 120' superpass sector to be a client of the Radiowaves 28db parabolic > dish it shows a quality of around 30db whilst the normal client (another > Radiowaves 28db parabolic 18km away) only shows 26db. > > Are any of your systems that are 15 foot apart a sector above a dish > pointing in roughly the same direction? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler > Sent: 28 October 2005 21:16 > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5GHz interference > > Are you sure the interference is caused by the other dish? We have > systems much closer than 15 foot apart and see no ill effects. > > With all the other gear on that tower could you in fact be seeing > interference from something else? > > Lonnie > > On 10/28/05, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi guys and gals, > > > > > > > >Just seeing if anyone has any advise when mounting more than 1 > > antenna in the same frequency range on a tower. We have just installed a > > 5.8GHz 120" vert sector at about 47m. Already on the same side of the > tower > > @ 42m is a 2 foot vert dish also running 5.8GHz. Both are pointing in > > roughly the same direction and there is 4 channels separation between > them. > > I read somewhere on this list that 5 foot separation should be enough but > I > > am seeing major interference. We have a horizontal dish also on this tower > > for a critical link so changing the dish to horizontal is not an option. > > Also, the tower is full of high frequency dishes and mobile antennas so > > there isn't much chance of moving either antennas to a different height. > > Anyone got any ideas?? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/2005 > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/2005 > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ethernet based authentication
PPPoE will break things like printers. I would use a HotSpot style authentication and enable only the known machines. All other machines are sent to a login page or are simply firewalled and prevented from doing anything. HotSpot and PPPoE require that you have a radius server. Lonnie On 11/30/05, John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone out there have experience with PPPoE?. I have a client who is a > local government entity. They have people who have abused their Internet > connection in the past. They restrict who has Internet access and when > it can be used. One of our techs unknowingly circumvented protocol by > helping an employee learn how to connect his personal laptop to the > hardwired Ethernet network. Now the government entity is highly peeved > at me. They want a complete report on the incident and a plan for how I > will prevent people from doing this in the future at all locations. I am > thinking we can use PPPoE to force all users even on the hardwired > network to authenticate in order to get on the Internet. What are your > thoughts? What will this break on an internal network that may be doing > other things? Could an internal Windows network still function normally > while the computer is not authenticated for Internet access? I have > never done PPPoE and need a little guidance from those of you who have. > Many thanks, > Scriv > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernet basedauthentication)
this? > >>> > >>>Tangent: How do you Senao 2611 users keep Netbios & windows network > >>> neighborhood data off the wireless network. I was told to add a SOHO > >>> router to the mix, but don't want to invest in more equipment to > >>> maintain. > >>> > >>> Jason Wallace > >>> -- > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >> > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernet basedauthentication)
The same way you do it if you didn't run DHCP. Use PPPoE, HotSpot, static DHCP based on MAC, ACL for association at the AP, any number of ways. DHCP has little to do with authentication, although it can be a part of the process. What DHCP does is automate the user TCP settings so that if you renumber your system in order to move to routing it is painless to assign new numbers. If you have to change DNS servers then that is also easy. Just change the DHCP config and within an hour everybody is using the new DNS. Don't run a network without it. It is priceless. Lonnie On 12/6/05, Ron Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > So Lonnie, if I run DHCP, on my customers IP's, how do I authenticate > the users. I'm a real rookie at this. > Ron Wallace > Original message > >Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:52:08 -0800 > >From: Lonnie Nunweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernet > basedauthentication) > >To: WISPA General List > > > >If you take Marlon's advice and do not run DHCP then you get to have > >that personal contact with each and every subscriber if you ever have > >to change network settings. With DHCP running it is real simple and > >quick to edit the DHCP config and wait for the DHCP client renewal . > > > >My advice is completely the opposite. Use DHCP for all of your > >customers. You will be happy you did and will mutter things when you > >encounter someone who is not on DHCP. > > > >The personal contact is nice but what if you have several hundred > >customers? That is just a little too nice for my tastes. > > > >Lonnie > > > >On 12/6/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Don't run DHCP! And use mac filtering at the ap's. (I use the > smartbridges > >> ap's. they'll do radius and authenticate wireless subs just like my > dialup > >> ones.) > >> > >> Marlon > >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > >> 42846865 (icq)And I run my own > wisp! > >> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:39 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernet > >> basedauthentication) > >> > >> > >> > Marlon, > >> > > >> >I appreciate the advice. Mostly I am interested in bullet proof > >> > authentication of my clients. Any suggestions? > >> > > >> > Jason > >> > > >> > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hiya Jason, > >> >> > >> >> You are mixing your networks You won't normally run a > homebrew > >> >> product to provide a top notch service. > >> >> > >> >> If security is of THAT great an importance to you, you should NOT > run > >> >> wifi anything. Put in something much more off the wall. It's a > lot > >> >> harder to snoop if you don't use one of the world's most common > >> >> protocols. > >> >> > >> >> For these business guys I'd run Trango or something like that. > Good > >> >> stuff but not nearly as much of it in use and no free tools on the > >> >> internet for intercepting and cracking the data stream. > >> >> > >> >> What we do is remind our customers that this is the internet. > They are > >> >> hanging out there for thousands upon thousands of people who's > only > >> >> purpose in life is breaking into their machines and seeing what > they can > >> >> learn. If they have data that's that sensitive then they need a > high end > >> >> internal firewall and they need to VPN all internet traffic. > >> >> > >> >> That help? > >> >> Marlon > >> >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > >> >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > >> >> 42846865 (icq)And I
Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernetbasedauthentication)
And that is the second thing that guys do wrong. They use simple bridged clients which are vulnerable to the issue of the backwards router and they create a host of other issues. You are building a network that connects to the Internet so why not use the same network design that the Internet uses? Routed. Sure you will find sections that are bridged but anything that leaves the backbone is routed to the customer. Bridged or rather no design is fine for small simple networks. Just plug things in and get on to the next job. As you grow the troubles will begin and then, eventually, you will have to reorganize your entire network and move to a routed design. Why wait for all that pain? Do it right, from the start. Allow yourself to grow and not have to go through that second painful redesign. I am usually silent and just watch the lists, but when I see wrong advice given I cannot watch in silence. It is wrong to not use DHCP and it is wrong to use a bridged design. If you have intentions of doing any sort of large customer base, please plan it correctly from the start. Do not listen to the guys who tell you to do it quick and dirty. I know this sounds preachy, but man, I get 10 calls a day from people who have stated out quick and dirty and they reach a certain size or get certain types of traffic, and their network just collapses. The fix is to go to routed and when they realize how much work it is to convert it, they all wish they had followed my consistent advice. For more than 5 years I have said the same thing on the various lists. I even got kicked off the Judd list for not backing down and agreeing that hacked together bridges were the way to go. Regards, Lonnie On 12/6/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, until some lunkhead plugs his dsl router in backward. As they do all > the time around here > > No thanks, no more DHCP troubles for me. Been there done that. Twice. > Never again. > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 2:27 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect > (WasEthernetbasedauthentication) > > > The same way you do it if you didn't run DHCP. Use PPPoE, HotSpot, > static DHCP based on MAC, ACL for association at the AP, any number of > ways. > > DHCP has little to do with authentication, although it can be a part > of the process. What DHCP does is automate the user TCP settings so > that if you renumber your system in order to move to routing it is > painless to assign new numbers. If you have to change DNS servers > then that is also easy. Just change the DHCP config and within an > hour everybody is using the new DNS. > > Don't run a network without it. It is priceless. > > Lonnie > > > On 12/6/05, Ron Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lonnie, > > So Lonnie, if I run DHCP, on my customers IP's, how do I authenticate > > the users. I'm a real rookie at this. > > Ron Wallace > > Original message > > >Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:52:08 -0800 > > >From: Lonnie Nunweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: [WISPA] How to Authenticate/Protect (WasEthernet > > basedauthentication) > > >To: WISPA General List > > > > > >If you take Marlon's advice and do not run DHCP then you get to have > > >that personal contact with each and every subscriber if you ever have > > >to change network settings. With DHCP running it is real simple and > > >quick to edit the DHCP config and wait for the DHCP client renewal . > > > > > >My advice is completely the opposite. Use DHCP for all of your > > >customers. You will be happy you did and will mutter things when you > > >encounter someone who is not on DHCP. > > > > > >The personal contact is nice but what if you have several hundred > > >customers? That is just a little too nice for my tastes. > > > > > >Lonnie > > > > > >On 12/6/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >> Don't run DHCP! And use mac filtering at the ap's. (I use the > > smartbridges > > >> ap's. they'll do radius and authenticate wireless subs just like my &g
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
We have not finished testing yet so we are keeping a bit quiet. I do not wish to promote this until I know for sure it is reliable. I can say that initial testing shows much better results than cw is seeing. Of course we do not use omnis and coat hangers but rather PacWireless 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. Our initial test configuration is a 4 port WAR board with 2 SR9 radios in the bottom slots and 2 WLM-54G radios in top slots. We run from 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of charge and battery. With our tower locations I can hit the both directions up and down our Valley on both 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz. Wer figure almost everybody should be able to connect with one or both. The preference will be for 2.4 GHz and use 900 MHz for tough jobs. I'll have more information later this week as we begin to connect a few customers and let them beat on it. Lonnie On 9/5/06, Cliff Leboeuf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CW, Did anyone offer their experiences on the SR9's as you asked below? Maybe I missed them. :( - Cliff On 8/31/06 4:05 PM, "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is anyone getting satisfactory performance with SR9s on WAR boards? If so, > what antennas are you using for base station and subscriber end? > > At an 1/8 of a mile through foliage and structures, a neg ninety two is rock > solid moving 1500k/sec with a couple of coat hangers for antennas. At 1/4 of > a mile with less of everything in the way, a neg eighty-five barely > associates and drops packets with most antenna combinations we've tried. > > A Pac Wireless 8dBi omni on the base station was the worst. Small Pac > Wireless sector panel to sector panel was the best performance. Yagi to omni > was worse than disappointing. I'd appreciate any antenna suggestions. > > Thanks, > > cw > > TerraNovaNet > http://www.TerraNova.Net > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 305-453-4011 > Think globally. Act locally. Conserve resources. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
No, not 48V yet. We are very happy with the current stuff, especially since they handle 2 SR9 and 2 WLM54 cards. Any power supply gets a lot of testing by me before I commit to it. I only change when there is a good reason and simply because there is a new power supply is not a good reason. Lonnie On 9/5/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We run from > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of > charge and battery. > Lonnie Are the 533 boards rated for 48 volts yet? George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
As I said we are using 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. We are in test mode so we are trying all of them for all locations so that we can find the best combination for the task. I am not at the point yet where I can give advice for which type to use for a certain task. There are still combinations to try as part of our evaluation. Lonnie On 9/5/06, cw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the info, Lonnie. The coathangers came after we couldn't make PacWireless sector panels, omnis or yagis work. Four radios on one WAR4 surprises me. Thought that was too much power consumption. You're using yagis for the base station broadcast? Which one/s? Can anyone point me at documentation for yagi propagation? I'll be real interested to see if you get any penetration at a mile or more. - cw Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We have not finished testing yet so we are keeping a bit quiet. I do > not wish to promote this until I know for sure it is reliable. I can > say that initial testing shows much better results than cw is seeing. > Of course we do not use omnis and coat hangers but rather PacWireless > 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. > > Our initial test configuration is a 4 port WAR board with 2 SR9 radios > in the bottom slots and 2 WLM-54G radios in top slots. We run from > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of > charge and battery. With our tower locations I can hit the both > directions up and down our Valley on both 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz. Wer > figure almost everybody should be able to connect with one or both. > The preference will be for 2.4 GHz and use 900 MHz for tough jobs. > > I'll have more information later this week as we begin to connect a > few customers and let them beat on it. > >> On 8/31/06 4:05 PM, "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is anyone getting satisfactory performance with SR9s on WAR boards? >> If so, what antennas are you using for base station and subscriber end? >> > >> > At an 1/8 of a mile through foliage and structures, a neg ninety two >> is rock solid moving 1500k/sec with a couple of coat hangers for antennas. >> At 1/4 of a mile with less of everything in the way, a neg eighty-five barely >> > associates and drops packets with most antenna combinations we've >> tried. >> > >> > A Pac Wireless 8dBi omni on the base station was the worst. Small Pac >> > Wireless sector panel to sector panel was the best performance. Yagi >> to omni was worse than disappointing. I'd appreciate any antenna suggestions. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Initial V3 results
Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial V3 results
We see about 10,500 KBytes/sec hdx with a 533 MHz WAR board and about 9,000 KBytes/sec with the 266 MHz WAR board. This is Turbo and clean channels, so it will be difficult to do this is in the real world, but it does show the capability. Lonnie On 9/8/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, So what kind of speeds can be had with the WAR 533mhz boards and this new V3 software with CM9 cards? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I > thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros > driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? > > http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial V3 results
Small packets were not tested. Lonnie On 9/8/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice. What about with small packets? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: 08 September 2006 17:08 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Initial V3 results Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 07/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 07/09/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone wwant to SUBSIDIZE AT&T with FREE bandwidth?
I would deal with it by a data transfer cap. Charge more when they exceed a "normal" amount. I need to be able to oversell my bandwidth and if everyone used their speed to its max, I would not be able supply a good service for the price I charge. The good thing is that if everyone watches TV using the Internet then soon you'll have the TV stations providing Internet with their unused bandwidth. Lonnie On 9/12/06, Frank Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the point is that AT&T is pushing to charge extra for additional bandwidth loads, e.g., Amazon, Google, Yahoo! etc, and this is where all the Net Neutrality crap began from. Do you recall AT&T Whitacre's "nobody gets a free ride" statement? http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=100380 Whitacre complained that "some people" want AT&T to act as a "dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger." "This thing is growing at a rate that nobody would imagine," Whitacre said of the market demand for bandwidth. He said AT&T networks are now handling 5.6 Petabytes of data every day. "There's more and more content, and you need more and more bandwidth, and somebody's got to build it." "If you build it, you have to make a return on that," he continued. "Nobody gets a free ride, that's all." So the point is, if one of your customers subscribes, can your network handle it? Or will you charge them extra? Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > George Rogato wrote: > >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-09-12T052710Z_01_N11192322_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-ATT-TV-DC.XML&from=business > > For those who can't psychically divine article content from URLs, the > article is about a service through which a few cable TV stations, > including Fox News (We report, we decide) and The Weather Channel, will > be available for $20 a month. Apparently AT&T is involved somehow, but > the article is a bit unclear as to who's doing what. > > I don't really see how this is, per se, subsidizing AT&T. In this > instance, they're just offering a service that folks can choose to > subscribe to, or not, and that's pretty much it. They (presumably) offer > it on identical terms to both their DSL subscribers, and those who > subscribe to other ILECs' DSL packages, and cable, and WISP, and so on. > > If NBC Universal offered a service where you could have episodes of > "Project Runway" and "Battlestar Galactica" streamed to your PC, would > we suddenly say we were subsidizing them? (Hey, if it keeps those shows > on the air a few more years, subsidize away ;) > > David Smith > MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
By power supply I am talking about the on board power supply. My first pick for external supply is solar charger to 24V batteries. Lonnie On 9/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So what Power Supply has won your first pick approval? (between 21-28V) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance > No, not 48V yet. We are very happy with the current stuff, especially > since they handle 2 SR9 and 2 WLM54 cards. Any power supply gets a > lot of testing by me before I commit to it. I only change when there > is a good reason and simply because there is a new power supply is not > a good reason. > > Lonnie > > On 9/5/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: >> We run from >> > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of >> > charge and battery. >> > Lonnie >> >> Are the 533 boards rated for 48 volts yet? >> >> George Rogato >> >> Welcome to WISPA >> >> www.wispa.org >> >> 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/ >> > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...
Paul, What do you mean when you say the CM9 listens on the whole 20 MHz when set to 5 MHz mode? Lonnie On 9/13/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would say that it depends on the application. The CM9 and the R52 use different generation of Atheros chipset. The main difference between the 2 chipsets is the newer chipset requires slightly less power to run and if you are running the card in 10MHz or 5MHz modes it will only listern to that 10MHz or 5MHz whilst the older CM9 chipset will still listen to the whole 20MHz. If you are looking to replace a 200mw 2.4 card then both the CM9 and the R52 may leave some of your clients with a weak signal so the Atheros based 200mw cards would be the way to go. If you aren't looking to use 10MHz or 5mhz then the CM9 is still a great choice however there are a couple of other next generation Atheros based cards out there. Cheers, P. Skyline Networks & Consultancy Ltd http://www.skyline-networks.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: 13 September 2006 16:38 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation... I am looking to replace my current APs and have decided to move to Mikrotik but am not sure of the best choice for a radio. The ones I am contemplating are the CM-9, R52, or the WLM54G. I currently use CM-9's in 5.8 for my backhauls and so far have been satisfied. My current AP radios are 200mW Prism radios (2.4), so I was considering the WLM54G as a replacement. The concern with them is a lot of resellers are out of stock, plus I have heard a few people say they have had performance issues with them. Lastly I have seen the R52, seems similar to the CM-9. The only issue I have with it so far is there is no US distributor I have found. Might not be a great issue except for shipping and RMA's. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 12/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 12/09/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...
We set our software to use antenna A which is the corner antenna connector on the CM9 and the WLM54G. The WLM54G calls that antenna the secondary, so we are accepting it as a mis-marked part, or marked for another application. We see no difference between A and B in terms of performance. Lonnie On 9/15/06, chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone else confirm/deny this? Thanks Chris I thought the issue was that the cards are mis marked. Marked back wards. The outside corner is actually antenna port "A" . Card says B George Anthony Will wrote: > It looks like he is talking about the antenna ports on the mPCI card. > There are generally two u.fl or some combo u.fl and sma, etc. He is > stating that if you utilize the wrong port on the card then what is > configured you will loss 20+db of signal. It also looks like the > WLM54AG's have an issue where they loss some signal if you utilize the > secondary port / b port on the card. FYI I have not used the WLM54AG > card as of yet. Sticking with my old reliable cm9's and SR5's > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing woes.....
What is the Ethernet assignment on the edge router? What is the connection to the BR AP units? Is it Ethernet or wireless? I am thinking it is Ethernet since the BR AP units seem to have their radios in AP mode, but the BH designation on the one unit has me not so sure of it. My first comment is actually a question. Why use bridging at all? You have subnets assigned to all devices so routing would be a snap to implement and you are more than half way there. Bridging uses the IP strictly for configuration. It will figure out the connections based on the ARP table, so in my mind you never really have routes in a bridge design. The two conflict. For routing design just make sure to use subnets that are common for each connected device. That means that if you connect the edge unit to the other units by Ethernet, they all share a unique subnet and when you can ping the connected units you have the basis for a routed backbone. Once that is done and all backbone units are pingable on Ethernet I would simply enable RIP and remove the bridge tags and you would be solid for the rest of the LAN. Just keep assigning new, unique subnets to all new devices and let RIP take care of it. All you will need is a default route on each new device that points to the machine and IP it connects with. By moving to routed and RIP you will find your current system is simpler and easier and I'll bet it will have higher performance and it will offer you more control and troubleshooting ability. Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am trying to add a route to my existing network and I just can't get it to work… The network I can't get to work is to network 172.22.20.0/24, all others work fine. Edge router StarOS 0.0.0.0/0 216.229.xxx.xxxether1 Wan 172.22.255.0/29 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR LAN 172.22.11.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP1 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP2 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP3 172.22.22.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 Route to Atheros test 172.22.23.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 Route to Prism test 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to Lenox BH ( does not work ) BR AP1 – StarOS, 2 wireless cards Wpci1 172.22.11.1AP Wpci2 172.22.1.3 BH Ether1 172.22.255.1 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.1.1 wpci2 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.255.2 ether1 Route to AP2 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 Route to AP3 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 Route to BH Lenox BR AP2 – Mikrotik, 1 wireless card Wpci1 172.22.12.1 AP Ether1 172.22.355.2 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.255.1 ether1 BR AP3 – StarOS, 2 wireless cards Wpci1 172.22.13.1 Wpci2 172.22.20.1 Ether1 172.22.255.3 0.0.0.0/24 172.22.255.1 ether1 Trace from machine on 172.22.1.0/24 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 172.22.20.1 Tracing route to 172.22.20.1 over a maximum of 30 hops 1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 172.22.1.1 2 1 ms 1 ms<1 ms 172.22.1.3 3 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.22.1.3 4 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.22.1.1 5 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms ^C Even though I have a route pointing it to 1.3, it starts with 1.1 unlike all the routes in the list. Mark This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838 I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear. Needless to say this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place in our tool chest. Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some trees. This is truly NON LOS. -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
Vertical and horizontal were tried. The results are the same.LonnieOn 9/17/06, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838 I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear. Needless to say this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place in our tool chest. Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some trees. This is truly NON LOS. Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use? Thanks leon -- Leon Zetekoff Proprietor Work: 484-335-9920 Mobile: 610-223-8642 Fax: 484-335-9921 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff BackWoods Wireless 505 B Main Street Blandon, PA 19510 "Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas" See who we know in common Want a signature like this? --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie NunweilerValemount Networks Corporationhttp://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing woes.....
The bridge feeding the BRAPx units can be a problem unless it is a true bridge, meaning it cannot be a pseudo bridge doing proxy arp or mac cloning. What type of unit is that bridge? Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The edge router is in my office connected to WAN and 172.22.1.0/24 There is a radio on the roof (bridge) feeding BR AP1 wireless (1.3) The second wpci is an AP (1.12) Ethernet connects BRAP1, BRAP2 and BRAP3 on 172.22.255.0/29 BRAP2 is an AP (12.1) BRAP3 is an AP (13.1) and a BH to a new tower. The back haul link is 172.22.20.0/24 Everything is statically routed except for the bridge radio feeding the tower. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routing woes. What is the Ethernet assignment on the edge router? What is the connection to the BR AP units? Is it Ethernet or wireless? I am thinking it is Ethernet since the BR AP units seem to have their radios in AP mode, but the BH designation on the one unit has me not so sure of it. My first comment is actually a question. Why use bridging at all? You have subnets assigned to all devices so routing would be a snap to implement and you are more than half way there. Bridging uses the IP strictly for configuration. It will figure out the connections based on the ARP table, so in my mind you never really have routes in a bridge design. The two conflict. For routing design just make sure to use subnets that are common for each connected device. That means that if you connect the edge unit to the other units by Ethernet, they all share a unique subnet and when you can ping the connected units you have the basis for a routed backbone. Once that is done and all backbone units are pingable on Ethernet I would simply enable RIP and remove the bridge tags and you would be solid for the rest of the LAN. Just keep assigning new, unique subnets to all new devices and let RIP take care of it. All you will need is a default route on each new device that points to the machine and IP it connects with. By moving to routed and RIP you will find your current system is simpler and easier and I'll bet it will have higher performance and it will offer you more control and troubleshooting ability. Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am trying to add a route to my existing network and I just can't get it to > work... > > The network I can't get to work is to network 172.22.20.0/24, all others > work fine. > > > > Edge router StarOS > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 216.229.xxx.xxxether1 >Wan > > 172.22.255.0/29 172.22.1.3 ether2 >Route to BR LAN > > 172.22.11.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP1 > > 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP2 > > 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP3 > > 172.22.22.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 > Route to Atheros test > > 172.22.23.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 > Route to Prism test > > 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to Lenox BH ( does not work ) > > > > BR AP1 - StarOS, 2 wireless cards > > Wpci1 172.22.11.1AP > > Wpci2 172.22.1.3 BH > > Ether1 172.22.255.1 > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.1.1 wpci2 > > 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.255.2 ether1 > Route to AP2 > > 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 > Route to AP3 > > 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 > Route to BH Lenox > > > > BR AP2 - Mikrotik, 1 wireless card > > Wpci1 172.22.12.1 AP > > Ether1 172.22.355.2 > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.255.1 ether1 > > > > BR AP3 - StarOS, 2 wireless cards > > Wpci1 172.22.13.1 > > Wpci2 172.22.20.1 > > Ether1 172.22.255.3 > > > > 0.0.0.0/24 172.22.255.1 ether1 > > > > > > Trace from machine on 172.22.1.0/24 > > C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 172.22.20.1 > > > > Tracing route to 172.22.20.1 over a maximum of 30 hops > >
Re: [WISPA] Broadband Company President Indicted on Federal Fraud Charges
I have heard about this on a few lists. Nothing I read indicates that he refused to repay the loans, so how can there be fraud? Doesn't it just burn everybody that someone will commit fraud (supposedly) and then have the audacity to use those funds for payroll? Lonnie On 9/18/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture of more than $1.6 million in connection with a $4.2 million loan related to the expansion of wireless broadband service to rural Minnesota. http://communitydispatch.com/artman/publish/article_6420.shtml -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 madwifi and WRAP power issues?
Depending on the driver version you'll see different numbers. The SR9 has a gain of about 12 dB that is not accounted for in the RF chain, so a number of 16 is actually 28 dB. The newer drivers do not allow you to exceed the manufacturer programmed maximum values, since doing so can overdrive the card and damage it. Lonnie On 9/19/06, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, I'm trying to evaluate my new SR9s. I have 2 WRAP boards and 11db antennas. I seem to recall at one point that I saw the TX power reported by iwconfig as 26db (700mw). Now a couple weeks later when I resume field tests, I noticed it was 16db. I can change the power down and iwconfig reports it, yet I can't change it above the 16 now reported? I swapped pigtails, and even SR9s to look at this. Can anyone suggest some way to verify power output short of a spectrum analyzer?? Thank you kindly, marshall Rabbit Meadows Technology -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
ned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(42). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses. > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
BLUSH. Thanks Patrick. Lifestyle has not elevated at all. That is why I moved to the sticks so I could avoid the pressures of keeping up with the other Yups. We live very simply. I bought a new Corolla last year. My '89 Landcruiser has a few more years left in her. One thing for sure is that we are known in the Valley. It makes it more difficult to get your mail (at the Post Office) and checkouts at the grocery store take longer. It is quite a change when the bank teller pumps you for a few answers while you are doing the banking. We are in the final stages of building 5 new towers. When they come on line we'll have an area that extends 150 km along the Valley floor and have almost perfect coverage to the people living along the Valley. This is how we perfect our code and I'm the guy they all call and talk to when it is not done right. We like reliable first, performance second and price third. It is fun and I was finally able to justify and buy a Bobcat. I have wanted one of those since forever. We are doing quite OK and having the most fun we have all ever had. It is fun to match the big boys almost feature for feature, especially when we are a 6 person company doing R&D, building and shipping product and running the local WISP. Rarely are we bored. I can also say that Valemount has the highest population density of Linux kernel and driver hackers, with three of us in a town of 1,100. Lonnie On 9/27/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I think you've done a great job with StarOS. You found a need and went after it with true entrepreneurial zeal. And you've done it all from that remote slice of mountain paradise. I bet your town is proud of you too, since you are a great local success story and a perfect example of the possibilities for smart people in small towns in a global marketplace. I suspect your lifestyle has been majorly elevated since you launched it and that's all well-earned! I remember you pre-StarOS! You got nothing but my respect. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion I agree that Tom's findings are accurate and mirror the real world, even to the conclusion --> they use our gear at the end of the exercise. It just means we'll have to work on our installation and troubleshooting tools. Lonnie On 9/27/06, Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators also > enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion > > The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear > the roof. Noise floor high. > Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. > Stats: rssi -75 & -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI almost > 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) > Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with > obstruction. > > Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in > survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels > accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of > gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. > > StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 & -60 rssi. Good link, > but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high > latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one side. > > StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 & -65 rssi. > Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare > negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two > reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide > beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. We > often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise of > > most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce > noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building > obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP > antennas. > > The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO interference > > or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out > there.
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
We are using the PacWireless 11 dB yagis for our AP. We are fortunate in that we have a narrow valley so that two 11 dB yagis cover both directions very nicely. I set up and AP 42 km from my first install. It is linked at 5.8 GHz with 3 foot dishes and CM9 radios. I get -70 dB signals and it is solid. For a hoot I turned the 900 AP into a client and did a site survey and it saw and was able to link to the 900 AP 42 km away. The signal was a -76 dB and it was very usable and no packet loss. This is with near perfect LOS. The other direction had a very large group of trees to go through BUT I still saw a -84 dB signal from 20 km and it was stable and usable. Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thank you for sharing this information with the list Joe, I appreciate it and I'm sure others do too! Please let us know if you decide to play with 900Mhz using an omni instead of a sector as I would be interested in hearing the range that is possible with an omni compared to a sector. I have my eye on the PacWireless OD9-11 (http://tinyurl.com/vq7dj). TGIF. Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation & Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned & Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: "Joe Laura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results Well, I finally got time to hang the 900 A/P tonight. MT with SR9 on a 532a. Client is a Rb112. Superpass 10dbi sector and a 10dbi panel for the client. While its not the golden bullet sorta speak I am very impressed with it. What better place to test than City Park. Its full of old tall oaks. From about two miles out I was seeing -75 signal and easily squeezing 2 megs up and down. I always see a lower upload on other gear but the 900 down and up always seemed to be almost the same. I have had many calls from a subdivision that was flooded from the storm and they still do not have bell or cable in there. I tried doing two houses in that subdivision without any luck with 2.4. Its loaded with trees. Well from my truck at these two locations I had no problem seeing a -72 signal. As I got a little closer to the pop maybe 1 mile I was seeing a -70 with still quite a few trees in the way and I was seeing four megs up and down This is where it seemed to peak out at. Like someone said its another tool in the tool box. Its just what I needed because while 2.4 will burn through some trees the 900m shots will do so much better. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
Yes that is with WAR boards and StarV3, but the point was more the range that can be attained and the antenna used (which is why I did not even mention StarOS). Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is quite remarkable Lonnie, thank you for sharing. I assume you are using StarOS on WAR boards for the 5.8GHz and 900MHz links referenced below? Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation & Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned & Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results We are using the PacWireless 11 dB yagis for our AP. We are fortunate in that we have a narrow valley so that two 11 dB yagis cover both directions very nicely. I set up and AP 42 km from my first install. It is linked at 5.8 GHz with 3 foot dishes and CM9 radios. I get -70 dB signals and it is solid. For a hoot I turned the 900 AP into a client and did a site survey and it saw and was able to link to the 900 AP 42 km away. The signal was a -76 dB and it was very usable and no packet loss. This is with near perfect LOS. The other direction had a very large group of trees to go through BUT I still saw a -84 dB signal from 20 km and it was stable and usable. Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for sharing this information with the list Joe, I appreciate > it and I'm sure others do too! > > Please let us know if you decide to play with 900Mhz using an omni > instead of a sector as I would be interested in hearing the range that > is possible with an omni compared to a sector. I have my eye on the > PacWireless OD9-11 (http://tinyurl.com/vq7dj). > > TGIF. > > > Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder > KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky > "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" > http://www.KyWiFi.com > Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 > === > $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet > $14.99 Home Phone Service > $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV > - No Phone Line Required for DSL > - FREE Activation & Equipment > - Affordable Upfront Pricing > - Locally Owned & Operated > - We Also Service Most Rural Areas > === > > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Laura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results > > > Well, I finally got time to hang the 900 A/P tonight. MT with SR9 on a 532a. > Client is a Rb112. Superpass 10dbi sector and a 10dbi panel for the client. > While its not the golden bullet sorta speak I am very impressed with it. > What better place to test than City Park. Its full of old tall oaks. From > about two miles out I was seeing -75 signal and easily squeezing 2 megs up > and down. I always see a lower upload on other gear but the 900 down and up > always seemed to be almost the same. I have had many calls from a > subdivision that was flooded from the storm and they still do not have bell > or cable in there. I tried doing two houses in that subdivision without any > luck with 2.4. Its loaded with trees. Well from my truck at these two > locations I had no problem seeing a -72 signal. As I got a little closer to > the pop maybe 1 mile I was seeing a -70 with still quite a few trees in the > way and I was seeing four megs up and down This is where it seemed to peak > out at. Like someone said its another tool in the tool box. Its just what I > needed because while 2.4 will burn through some trees the 900m shots will do > so much better. > Superior Wireless > New Orleans,La. > www.superior1.com > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/w
Re: [WISPA] ot, internet home user security info
http://www.scambusters.org/ They seem to know about everything. I always direct people to it when they ask about emails that are clearly bogus. Lonnie On 10/17/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, I'd like to add some info to our tech support site. What I'm specifically looking for is a site that shows some examples of phishing, virus', identy theft etc. Anyone know of a site that's already done? OR do I need to make one? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] "The Gremlin," redux
P, one with a 5.3GHz AP and a 5.8GHz AP) and the non-2.4 customers aren't affected? Keep in mind that, for annoying historical reasons, much of our network is still "flat," bridged addresses flying willy-nilly across four counties. If it were a network storm, I'd expect it to hit all our towers, on all channels, and not conveniently skip over the most geographically remote ones. There's also all the nasty logistical problems of my company not having twenty extra hands that we can just have sitting at all our towers for days, or weeks, at a time, waiting for a problem that shows up completely randomly, hoping I can call everyone to start unplugging stuff before the problem magically goes away, but that's another issue altogether ;) Last, remember this really is amazingly random, and usually only shows up for a minute or two at a time, brief enough that I only see it in our logs well after the fact. (Yesterday it visited us for a good twenty minutes, long enough for customers to really notice, and for me to have time to dig into it again.) I certainly don't mean to sound dismissive of any suggestions, it's just that I've tried most of the "obvious" ones before. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] H.323 video conference
Mark, I cannot help you on this list. Please use our Support Forums at http://forums.star-os.com/ for StarOS related questions. Thanks, Lonnie On 10/30/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am still trying to get a Polycom video conference unit to work from my private NAT network through a StarOS router to the public Internet. I have had to unit working fine on the outside of the firewall but cannot get it to connect from the inside. I kind of feel it is an H.323 compliance issue. Are there setting I need to make in StarOS? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain
ain first. >> >> Having said that, a lot of people put in the high gain 900 omni >> antennas and >> don't seem to have much trouble with them. >> >> I agree with the sector idea though. >> >> The 900 that I'm using now is trango. They have almost got the full >> eirp >> built right in to the radio/antenna system as it comes from the factory. >> The down side is that it takes 6 ap's to cover 360*. That can get >> spendy. >> Especially if you pay rent per antenna. >> >> As a rule, we are sectorizing more and more sites these days. Even >> the ones >> out in the sticks. There are too many other users out there showing >> up all >> of the time. >> >> latetrs, >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Barry at Mutual Data" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain >> >> >> >> >>> Hello Brian, >>> >>> No more then 8db in my playbook anymore. And horz. if at all possible. >>> >>> Sectors on 900 is the best way to go too. >>> >>> I got an Antel 11db with downtilt that I would sell if you really >>> want a >>> vertical omni. Heavy duty antenna. >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 8:20:28 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> BR> I looking for input on what vertical 900 omni to use. I have heard >>> BR> statements from Marlon like "I'd never use a 2.4 omni over such and >>> such >>> BR> gain.", because of the beamwidth and such. Anyway what are the >>> BR> opinions of the use of the 900 omni? >>> BR> http://www.pacwireless.com/products/omni_900mhz.shtml >>> >>> BR> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: >> 11/3/2006 >> >> >> >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Client loss during longer AP outagage[late nite AP service window]
What are the brands of the client units? They might very well have the same gear inside which could account for the similar behaviour. Lonnie On 11/8/06, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, I've seen this situation now several times, and wonder if someone on the list has an explaination for it. Last week we took down one of our APs (802.11b) for several hours to replace it with a new one. We ran into some issues and had to fall back to using the original system. We brought up the original system after being down for 3 or 4 hours. Of the 25 subs, 4 or 5 CPEs did not re-associate with the AP. All was cleared up when customers called & were instructed to recycle power to outdoor CPEs. This situation happened to 3 different types of CPEs that we have in the field for this AP. Is there something fundamental in the 802.11b specification that I am missing? Has anyone else seen this before? I'm now ready to replace the AP with the new equipment, but worry that I'll have CPE re-association issues again if off-line for too long (2-4 hours?). Thanks for your replies, Marshall -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Multi-Mini-PCI self interference
I have a site with 3 repeater links at 5.x GHz and 1 AP in the 2.4 GHz band. Our standard AP is now 2x2.4 GHz and 2x900 MHz. We really blanket an area like that. If we have LOS we use 2.4 GHz otherwise we use 900 MHz. I can't give any real numbers as to interference but it does work. I make use of top and bottom radios and channel spacing to provide separation. Lonnie On 11/19/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Has anyonoe tested the amount of self interference created between two MiniPCI RF cards mounted in the same box in the same spectrum range? Does the connector bleed RF? My original thought for multi-Slot boards (Mikroti/WAR) was that if I wanted to put in 4 cards, I could put in a 2.4, 900, 5.3, and 5.8G all in the same box without self interference since they were in different spectrum ranges. But can two cards be put in, within the same range (Qty 2- 5.3Ghz cards for example) without interference? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR9 problems.. > Hi, > > I wouldn't recommend more than one SR9 per RB532. They draw a lot of > power, and you will probably burn up your RB after a while. > > Also, there is a frequency conversion chart in the Mikrotik forums on how > the 2.4ghz channels translate to the 900mhz channels. Mikrotik will be > fixing this in the 3.0 release. > > Travis > Microserv > > J. Vogel wrote: >> I finally got a chance to play with the SR9 cards I got in last week. >> Installed them >> in a RB532 running 2.9.30, along with one Prism nl-2511mp plus and a >> RouterBoard r52 (Atheros chipset?). Not working. >> >> First off, the SR9s are big enough that they don't fit everwhere you >> might think they >> should... such as on the top side of a RB112. Neither do they fit in one >> of the two >> slots in the expansion daughterboard for a RB532. Swapping cards around, >> I did >> get the two SR9s in with the other two cards above. One is on the >> daughterboard, >> the other is (I think) on the back side of RB532. Fired up the system, >> and it shows >> four wireless interfaces. The Prism, and the rb52 (which shows up as >> Atheros AR5413) >> both work, am able to configure them and pass traffic through them as >> desired. >> >> The other two interfaces are listed as AR5213 cards. Is that correct? >> When I >> attempt to configure those interfaces (using winbox) the only option I >> have available >> for the RF band is 2.4Ghz, along with the B,G 10mHz and 5 mHz options in >> that >> band. Channels 1 through 11 in the 2.4 range are available for me to >> select. Nothing >> about 900 mHz. >> >> What am I doing wrong? >> >> John >> > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need opinion
My recommendation is to have a dual WAR board at the main POP. Use a 5 GHz antenna and radio to connect tot the middle repeater and have a 2.4 GHz with an omni at the main just to be able to connect any local customers. The biggest investment is the CPU board and time to install, and an extra radio and 15 dB omni is cheap. Even a couple of subscribers will make it pay. At the middle repeater I would use a dual WAR with 5 GHz radios to point to main and the remote end. If you want some local service at that repeater then use a 4 port WAR and throw a 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz card in it or both 2.4 GHz or 900 MHz. Your choice. The remote end is a copy of the main end with a dual WAR and 5 GHz input and a 2.4 GHz to an omni for local use. This arrangement will get you 20 to 30 mbps of sustained throughput as long as the middle repeater is no farther than 30 miles from either end. You'll also have a couple of revenue generating AP units at each end and potentially the middle. Lonnie On 12/12/06, Carlos A. Garcia G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have just recived an answer from chad saying that starOS its a good choice, thanks chad ill check it, for your question yes i w'd like to play, i have never deployed my routers, but i really would like to, so im like a newbie compared to the people in this list but im hungry to learn the how to, thanks to everybody, this is an amazing list. Mario Pommier escribió: > Carlos, >that's your first item, your line of thinking seems accurate: > >Cisco, Proxim, Trango, Alvarion, StarOS, Mikrotik -- what equipment > will you choose and what is the advantage/disadvantage of each. >Maybe your first perspective is: do you want to go with a > "finished, packaged" product, or do you want to be able to "play more > with the tools and toys" out there? >The type of computer person you are may be a good guide: do you > deploy your own Unix/Linux based routers or do you buy Cisco finished > products? >Hope that helps some. > > Mario > > Carlos A. Garcia G wrote: > >> Thank u very much, but the question it is, i do not know many >> equipments, i have only work with cisco aironet, the last time i do >> something similar and get the cisco 1300 series the problem it is >> that in order that this work i have to use 4 radios >> >> 1300<-->[1300 -ethernet-1300]<-->1300 >> >> and what i need it is to know for example: the proxim LMG22 work in >> 5.8 and can be used as: >> >> LMG22<-->LMG22<-->LMG22 >> >> im currently looking with cisco, proxym, trango, mikrotik but i dont >> get the answer that im looking for. >> Mike Brownson escribió: >> >>> Carlos, >>> >>> It all depends on how big a hill and what speed you need. There is >>> some PtP equipment (Motorola PtP, formerly Orthogon) that can talk >>> over the hill in one link if the hill is not too big or the distance >>> is not too long. Other option is to put another repeater in >>> between. But that means another radio site. If you want to send me >>> latitude and longitude of both sites I can see if the one radio link >>> will work. >>> >>> Mike B >>> >>> Carlos A. Garcia G wrote: >>> >>>> Hi i have a problem i need to establish a wireless link betwen my >>>> ofice and another ofice there are a hill betwen so what equipment >>>> or vendors do i have to contact: look! >>>> >>>> NOC <-->> POP <-->> OFFICE >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] salary
gt; >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;) >>>>> >>>>> What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the >>>>> percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue... >>>>> >>>>> Travis >>>>> Microserv >>>>> -- >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal >(FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Ryan, I have no personal experience with the Tranzeo line so I cannot answer directly. Through helping people on our Support Forums I know some people have nothing but trouble while others have a really good experience with the CPQ series on our Access Points. I think it all depends on the firmware and hardware version. Sorry to not be able to be more positive for you. Lonnie On 12/28/06, D. Ryan Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone just answer the questions I had without fighting amongst yourselves? (I thought Xmas with the inlaws was bad!) Lonnie... If I were to buy a StarOS type product, would it be compatable with the CPQ series radios from Tranzeo? What sort of client load should I be able to support on a Star-OS based AP? ryan On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Patrick, > > This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have > always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several > lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we > have outlived several LARGER companies. > > Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I > cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be > seen as self serving. What is your excuse? > > > Lonnie > > > On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has >> no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and >> quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your >> investment from an equity standpoint. >> >> >> Patrick Leary >> AVP WISP Markets >> Alvarion, Inc. >> o: 650.314.2628 >> c: 760.580.0080 >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Butch Evans >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... >> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal >> >(FCC-certified) brands? >> >> Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was >> asked. >> >> -- >> Butch Evans >> Network Engineering and Security Consulting >> 573-276-2879 >> http://www.butchevans.com/ >> Mikrotik Certified Consultant >> (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(190). >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(43). >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses. >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Seemed kind close to my home is all. All the Best in 2007. Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware suppliers? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has > no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and > quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your > investment from an equity standpoint. > > > Patrick Leary > AVP WISP Markets > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Butch Evans > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > > >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal > >(FCC-certified) brands? > > Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was > asked. > > -- > Butch Evans > Network Engineering and Security Consulting > 573-276-2879 > http://www.butchevans.com/ > Mikrotik Certified Consultant > (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(190). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(43). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. > **** > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
same market as an illegal competitor, I'd for sure use that against them with respect to winning roof and tower rights, fighting their interference in court, and informing their customers of the risks. And that'd all be an entirely fair and ethical approach. Rant off. Sigh. G'night. Be safe this New Years. ...and BE LEGAL! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Then you must not be aware that Lonnie is now also selling the complete package. The newest product is Star V3, Atheros cm9 and a gateworks customized board to Lonnies specs. It's called the WAR board, or Wireless Advanced Router. They come in 2 flavors, a 4 port 533MHz proc or a 2 port 266MHz proc, both with 2 ethernets. Can do 5, 10, 20,,40MHz channel widths. I have better than 200 maybe 250 by now WAR boards in place with Pac Wireless Rootennas both 5 gig and 2 gig. Recently I built a new pop using a water tank. My transfer rate from the tank to my house gave me just under 30megs ftp across that link using a pair of 266's. Most of the links I put in are 5 gig and I use the 2nd port for a 2 gig wifi ap for the immediate area. I can honestly say that I can not remember having to reboot any of my war boards and 20 megs is not uncommon across my wireless man. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions
open up new ways > for roving government servants and businesspeople to work. > > According to James Hettrick, CIO of the Southern California city of Loma > Linda that has its own municipal fiber network, San Francisco's proposed > plan is okay as a start, but he says San Francisco officials are fooling > themselves if they think it is anything more than a temporary solution. > > "Ultimately they have to figure out how to solve this problem or they'll > be a tier one city that's abandoned by their tech community." (r) > Related stories > > What a tangled mesh we weave (31 January 2007) > http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/31/wireless_mesh_packethop/ > Muni Wi-Fi - survey may not be as impartial as it seems (10 December 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ > Vista - hot or not? (30 November 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/30/vista_letters/ > FTC issues competition guidelines for Muni Wi-Fi (10 October 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/10/ftc_issues-muni_wifi_guidelines/ > Google wins SF wireless gig (6 April 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/04/06/google_sf_muni_wifi/ > Earthlink wins Philly Wi-Fi gig (4 October 2005) > http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/04/philadelphi_muni_wifi/ > > (c) Copyright 2007 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Actually G mode works better than that. We have clients with -80 dB and they can pull a steady 10 mbps on a X2 cloaked channel (10 MHz of RF bandwidth). Even at -85 dB they can still pull 5 mbps and burst to 10 mbps. Of course these results are with Atheros cards. I have no idea about other brands of G mode cards. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >I wanted to get some feedback from the List. > > Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS > or Mid-range CPE links? > Is 18 dbi enough? > > I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long > range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good > for? > Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? > > I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but > PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. > The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference > resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be > accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros > cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. > > Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas > that you need to make it work right. > > Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, > and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. > > laters, > marlon > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > >> I wanted to get some feedback from the List. >> >> Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short >> Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? >> Is 18 dbi enough? >> >> I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long >> range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be >> good for? >> Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? >> >> I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but >> PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 >> cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for >> interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was >> needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such >> Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. For a microcell we use 5 GHz to feed the site with one CM9 radio and we then use a 15 dB omni for 2.4 GHz and we use the other two radios for 900 MHz and another 5 GHz feed to another site. Most of my subscribers can now see at least 3 and as many as 6 of my Access Points. This gives me an incredible ability to switch them if I need. This is Mesh, plain and simple. The ability to have multiple choices is what Mesh is all about. If the backbone is Mesh then all sites will have multiple paths to the Internet and a single failure merely has everyone move to another AP and Mesh Routing takes care of the move. I can pull the power plug on an AP and within 1 minute all users are automatically moved to another AP and are back surfing. I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point --> I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install > today are G. > 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. > 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and > even low 80's beat B. > > B stands for Bad > G stands for Good > > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > > It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. > > > > Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas > > that you need to make it work right. > > > > Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, > > and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. > > > > laters, > > marlon > > > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM > > Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > > > > >> I wanted to get some feedback from the List. > >> > >> Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short > >> Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? > >> Is 18 dbi enough? > >> > >> I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long > >> range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be > >> goo
