On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Colton Conor
wrote:
> What dns name solvers do you use to hand out to your customers via DHCP
> and why? Today we just hand out Google's 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 as a name
> resolvers. I recently learned about OpenDNS's free service for homes where
> a home user can mo
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Robert Clark
wrote:
> Looking at acquiring AirFiber back haul but I am concerned that the front
> of the antenna is very flat and that snow would stick to it and degrade and
> possibly take down the link?
>
> Has anyone seen this
>
> We will be using them on a 2 mi
>
> The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as
> options for purchasing internet. The government instead of regulating
> should encourage competition in the free market. WISPs are one such
> competitor.
>
>
WISPs are prevented by laws of Electromagnetism and Communicati
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Brough Turner
wrote:
>On 8/5/14 6:38 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Gino Villarini
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html
>>
>>How to operate an outdoor radio with 4 spatial
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Off topic, are you guys based in Columbia?
>
>
> .co, .me, .tv, .io, .tk and a few other country-code TLDs adopted a
generic way of selling, so only a few .co domains are from people from
Colombia. It only shows that they preferred to invest
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html
>
>
How to operate an outdoor radio with 4 spatial streams with dual-polarized
antennas ? It seems I'm missing something...
Rubens
___
Wireless mailing li
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Matt Brendle <
mattagator.mailingli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So a question for the masses. We are selling VoIP services and the number
> of Support Calls we get about poor performance is more than I would
> expect. Our basic setup is UBNT backhauls and APs, Mikroti
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> Better CPU, better rf shielding, 256qam, 80 MHz channels...
>
The pictures didn't inspire me much as having better RF shielding. Are you
sure of that ?
Rubens
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:41 PM, wrote:
> I saw that as well. But again, if this is the "Lite" product, is there a
> higher level product to come, perhaps with GPS?
>
Possibilities I've identified so far:
- 160 MHz support
- AirPrism
- MU-MIMO (n/a to PTP)
Rubens
___
you talking about?
> NGL
>
> *From:* Rubens Kuhl
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 01, 2014 12:39 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Redirect via Edgerouter Lite - 3
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:11 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:
>
>> Can the Edgerouter L
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:11 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:
> Can the Edgerouter Lite - 3 redirect via IP or Mac to a "PAY your Bill"
> web page?
> \Thanx
> NGL
>
This would require taking the ERL-3 out of FastPath. If you can survive the
performance hit, such kind of redirect require CLI tuning, not availabl
In a low interest rate market, I don't believe in financing any part of a
selling business. But if there is some disagreement about how much it
values, some kind of performance payment could be in order. But financing
per se is not the role of seller; banks exist for that.
Rubens
On Wed, Mar 19
>
>
> Faisal,
> A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and
> Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough
> for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations.
> With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not.
y
> P: (804) 864-4125
> M: (440) 220-2192
> afreylekh...@axxcelera.com
> www.axxcelera.com
> On Jan 7, 2014 8:46 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Ian Framson
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Wisps,
>>
>> We are looking for a pair of rad
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Ian Framson wrote:
> Hi Wisps,
>
> We are looking for a pair of radios that can do 200 Mbps FDX over 11 miles
> (real world, not manufacturer's theoretical marketing promises). We are
> looking at using an unlicensed link (most likely 5 GHz) due to the time
> const
Gigabit Ethernet requires all 4 pairs, so passive PoE wasn't an option.
If using active PoE, going with 802.3af makes more sense, and its 48v by
standard.
I don't think UBNT was trying any lock-in with this move. It was this way
or having separate admin / data interfaces, with the admin being 100
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> http://www.ubnt.com/stock
>
> You probably won't find anyone with any in stock at the moment, though.
If Ben Moore wants to send 1 or 2 to me while I'm at USA, UBNT end up
getting free publicity in an emerging market...
(blink blink)
Rubens
Folks,
I've thought I saw once an URL UBNT "find who has stock", but couldn't
find searching my archives. Is there such thing ?
I was trying to buy 1 or 2 EdgeRouter 3-port but so far couldn't find
anywhere. In the forums I saw people saying they had it backordered,
others saying they received th
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I believe the source project has no or minimal MPLS support.
>
> Lack of MPLS is a deal killer for me, but I suspect they'll get it in there.
There are some reasons to use Router OS MPLS
1) Main reason is VPLS, either for private network cus
> With RouterOS based switching chips you gain some additional power, but you
> lose per-interface information and control when you enable the switching and
> you still have to use bridging to do anything beyond whatever ports happen to
> be on the switch chip. Therefore, to use any of the Route
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens
wrote:
> We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip address to
> the customers router.
> He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
> Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears customers w
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ben West wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Could someone recommend a Mikrotik product, ideally one of Router Boards w/
> enclosure, that would be effective for performing bandwidth shaping of ~3
> dozen clients sharing a single uplink with 100Mbit/s download speed? I.e.,
> what
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> We looked at PW, requested some info via their webpage... no response...
>
> We are inclined to to TD-LTE... but apparently all td-lte products is
> vaporware still. Only a small group producing gear, usually the big guys like
> Samsung,
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> Looking for some feedback on Base Station Equipment experience for 2.5 ghz.
> Either Wimax or other technology used. Offlist or onlist …
Navini gear had an incredibly good indoor reach, either CDMA or WiMAX.
Too bad that Cisco bought them
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> What’s a good wireless diagram software?
I saw very good diagrams made with Gliffy, an online tool, but the
free version requires your diagrams to be public.
Still on the online front, http://www.diagram.ly/ looks interesting as
it's not the
>From a marketing standpoint, it's probably the other way around. Given
an EVA(profit adjusted for capital costs) target for the product, what
benefits needs to be packed so the perceived value matches pricing ?
In other words, they might know pretty well you would settle for less
bandwidth. But t
> We have a site that costs @ $3800/month for (shared) 3Mbps/512Kbps
> (Satellite), so we have been caching with Mikrotik proxy since the
> beginning (1998). I found a caching system that works well and caches
> videos and other types of traffic. If anyone is in the same situation
> you may want to
> What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is getting on a PtP ubnt
> connection? We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 mi, CCQ 97-98%, 40mhz channel
> width, airmax off.
>
>
>
> Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270. Real TCP throughput via iperf radio to
> radio is 40-45mbps.
Are you testing w
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Matt wrote:
>> I am seeing the 5.4.3 improve things on point to multi point.
>
> How well does Ubiquiti handle PtmP? We have some Canopy AP's with 60+
> users. Heard that since Ubiquiti uses a wifi chipset they cannot
> handle this kind of traffic?
Wi-Fi
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
wrote:
> Tried again and this time airmax off seems to have done the trick. Is there
> any suggested settings in Advanced tab for a 2km link?
Turning auto-ACK off and setting it to 3km is probably a good thing.
Getting different results with
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
wrote:
> I tried airmax off but the link is almost unusable. Is there any advanced
> settings I need to change?
The other scenario where Airmax makes better goodput is interference,
either from your tower or from others. Shielding the Rocket m
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
wrote:
> Ok, so WDS fixed the latency. At 20mhz channel and 100%ccq what should our
> actual throughput be. We are only seeing 20mbps max.
Airmax should be used on P2P only for high-distance (~50km or more)
links. Keep WDS on but turn Airmax of
> Forums are less than optimal for support from manufacturers. Always
> go for e-mail and call if they don't respond in a timely fashion.
My experience for Cisco, Juniper or UBNT gear is somewhat different.
I've got better support from users, including mailing lists and web
forums, than from the
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Troy Settle wrote:
> How does one typically monitor remote locations to know when/if they’re
> running on generator? I’d like to know when a generator exorcises and when
> it’s running due to a power outage.
>
>
>
> The easiest solution I can think of, is to stick
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> Working on a RUS funded RFP, need a 802.16e 2.5 & 4.9 system, who are the
> current players?
Redline Communications has a few new series named RDL-, and some
of them support 4.9. 2.5 is a band they long ago decided not to
support.
Rub
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> Rubens,
>
> Thanks for the reply!
>
> I'm using a 5GHz AirMax back haul (PtMP) to two 2.4GHz APs (All UBNT
> gear). The 5GHz back haul has never broken a sweat. Our "upstream" is a
> 1M/256K high latency connection so there just
> One of the best examples is the impact of half duplex radios, or adaptive
> speed (modulation) radios, on bandwdith management systems that treat
Ideally, adaptive modulation radios should have QoS policies built-in.
That is true for Ceragon IP-MAX^2 radios that are aware to EXP MPLS
markings, b
> I was running Butch's script with PCQ queues but I started wondering about
> "buffer bloat" (yeah, I follow NANOG too) on the router. I thought about
> trying RED on the outbound queue since if packets are dropped and resent on
> our wireless network it's no biggie. Our wireless network is way
> I’m looking for options for DNS redundancy. In a nutshell, we have two
> datacenters in two different cities. We need to have some redundancy for
> our publicly accessible servers. We do NOT want to do round-robin DNS, and
> auto-failover options are either not available or too costly at this
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:
>
> Anyone have a good vendor for a rackmount poe switch for ubnt gear?Getting
> kinda messy with all the zip-ties and double-sided tape ;) Thanks! Jason
Not UBNT, but RADWIN has a product called BDU (Base Distribution Unit)
for up to 8 rad
> Had to swap out a switch in a hurry and this was the best option at Fry's
> Managed switch
> Gigabit
> No Fan
> POE on port 1
> Managed
> This thing is not passing anything other than native VLAN1.
> Anyone using Netgear switches than can explain the terminology? Netgear tech
> support is less t
> I was playing around with a spare rb433 doing something similar to what
> you just posted (nth+conn-mark rules) but, things were not working
> properly. I noticed my connections were really really slow, I don't know
> if I did something wrong.
It's very easy to do something wrong in such kind of
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Optimum Wireless Services
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was thinking of using MikroTik rb450g to balance four 5mbps/1mbps dsl
> lines to replace TP-Link TL-R480+ which locks up from time to time.
>
> Just wanted to know how many of you use MT routerOS for load balancing
>
distribute Google Apps for ISPs.
>
> You can find out more information about the program at:
> http://partneredition.ikano.com/
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shaun Hoggan
> s...@ikano.com
> 801-415-8113
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@w
it wasn't free from MS for ISPs.
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft Domains Live is currently free for the services and/or
>> number of accounts demanded by small and medium ISPs. Google used to
>&g
n Hoggan
> s...@ikano.com
> 801-415-8113
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:37 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Google ISP edition
&g
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote:
> I know the ISP edition isn't available any more. What version or where is the
> place to go to get the replacement. I'm looking to use it for a couple
> customers.
http://domains.live.com
Rubens
-
to near GigE with near zero downtime
> sometime down the road.
>
> On Feb 5, 2011 2:54 PM, "Rubens Kuhl" wrote:
>
> Ceragon has High Power ODUs and a very good xpic (dual polarity
> antennas on the same frequency) support, both good things for the
> original poster... b
Ceragon has High Power ODUs and a very good xpic (dual polarity
antennas on the same frequency) support, both good things for the
original poster... but on GigE isn't Dragonwave Quantum a bit better
than Nera/Ceragon ?
Rubens
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Bob Moldashel wrote:
> Nera was just
> We recently upgraded a link and started having some packet loss. Looking at
> the manged switch, it was obvious the CMM on that tower was getting ethernet
> errors. Auto negotiation on GigE switches is flaky as hell. This is the
> second time in a month I've had to hard code both ends. This h
If you have 100% Fresnel Zone 1 clearance, instead of 60% FZ1 which is
the usual parameter over land, you are probably good to go.
As these sites are more prone to rust, I would strongly prefer
integrated units instead of dish antennas; Ubiquiti Powerbridge M
comes to mind, both because not having
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Any discussion on best way to combine the two links from the DATA FLOW
> perspective or TCIP/IP perspective?
> The average Mikrotik Loadbalancer may not handle that 800mbps link all that
> well.
>
> Are people using Switch level trunk aggregatio
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> Any Juniper fans / users on this list ?
>
> I have a couple of questions about them.
M-series: Very good, but are aging very fast. Good to buy used, though.
MX-series: The new king of the hill. The first J's I would considerer
for most of th
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists
wrote:
> Hi Rubens,
>
> We've found Quagga to be rock solid with the typical application which is
> under a dozen peers.
>
> We did add a patch to prevent the never-emptying work queue backlog problem
> when multiple peers flap at the same ti
>> Although it's a different scenario, the IXP folks beg to differ about
>> Quagga reliability. When the number of peers is high, it flops
>> miserably. Some of them moved to OpenBGPd, some of them to BIRD
>> (http://bird.network.cz). None of them moved to XORP, Mikrotik's
>> choice (and Vyatta's p
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Note: Quagga has been very reliable for quite some time now. Imagestream and
> Vyatta both use Quagga. Both are great choices for BGP routers.
Although it's a different scenario, the IXP folks beg to differ about
Quagga reliability. When the nu
Although a P3 800 is not something we could call powerful these days,
what you've seen is connected to software, not hardware. Since
Mikrotik replaced Quagga with XORP in ROS 3.x, a good number of users
report minutes of high CPU in a full-routing environment. Does not
happen for everyone, but happ
Netgear GS-108T. It doesn't have SFP ports, though.
Ceragon IP-10 radios have an internal switch, which is a nice thing
from a reliability standpoint.
Rubens
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Matt wrote:
> Looking for a manged VLAN switch with ~8 GigE ports. Anyone know of
> anything? Going
> I'd like to have at least 8 ports at every site so that I don't have to
> include a switch:
>
> 2 for backhauls
> 3 for APs
> 1 for UPS
> 1 for remote power control unit
> 1 for laptop access when technician is there
>
> I just looked at the docs for the RB1100...
>
> It says "thirteen individual
> "interference nulling", etc), but that seems to have limited
> effectiveness when it comes to receiving transmitted packets from the
> client end (resulting in slow uplink?).
Multi-antenna systems like the ones doing beamforming can provide MRC
(Maximal-Ratio Combining), which does improve the r
> Is RIP solid? It's been around for decades, and I used it extensively in
> the beginning years when I was doing everything. But it seems that we have
> many problems lately and RIP is being blamed for it. It's a very easy
> protocol to administer & configure, not too complicated, so I can't im
Ihnen wrote:
> When you take the ethernet ports off auto are you using a crossover cable? I
> learned that the hard way (well not too hard, when I posted that turning off
> auto made the port on some UBNT gear go dead folks here educated me).
>
> Greg
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:5
(sorry for the cross-posting)
One test scenario of a RB-1100 are showing some strange issues including
- Ports do not connect with forced speed/duplex, only with auto
- Iperf tests going thru it does OK with UDP but simply passes no TCP traffic
It looks pretty close to this post on MT forum:
htt
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
> I wanted to follow up on this.
> I swapped a 750 out for a RB/600 the other day, and now my packet loss
> problems have gone away. Must be a problem with incompatibility to a
> MikroTik.
RB-600 has GigE interfaces, while RB-750 has FastE. See
I've seen a few of those records, but I would like to see records of
long distance *stable* connections, let's say four nines.
Rubens
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Pretty impressive for 5.8Ghz. I'm aware of numerous long 2.4G links, but
> this is clearly a record for 5.8
> MT isn't helping by being largely incompetent at change/quality control.
> Regressons appearing between releases on modules where there are no changes
> listed in the changelog etc.
Changelogs that don't reflect actual changes or secretive known bugs
are a bad industry habit. Cisco does that as
> Half duplex eth6 to eth7. Eth6 is master-port for eth7.
> Frame Size, PPS
> 64, 148810
This is 100M, isn't it ? 1Gbps connection could provide more, I think.
Rubens
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wis
If you have a ring, don't do layer 3. Use L2 switch that have some
form of rapid recovery that isn't spanning-tree based, and have 2
strong Layer 3 routers connected to it.
An usual combination is Extreme pizza boxes with EAPS ring-protection,
2 Juniper M7i routers with VRRP, but many others will
AN80-i-s are impressive radio units, but interference from other
unlicensed radios will take some of its throughput. AN80 will survive
where other radios won't, but it will cost you some performance.
Try getting one with the maximum bandwidth license, 108 Mbps, even if
you plan to use less. It is
An RB1000 with an external switch will handle more traffic than RB1100.
Rubens
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Francois Menard wrote:
> Even RB1100 ?
>
> That would be my choice. 399$ for 13 GigE ports...
>
> F.
>
> On 2010-09-08, at 8:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
>> Non of the sub $1000 app
Larry,
Does the solution includes scope or target-scope ? Recursive route
resolution on Mikrotik is dependent on such parameters
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Using_scope_and_target-scope_attributes
Rubens
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Larry A Weidig wrote:
> Just wanted to
> Since their beam forming is dynamic, I would expect it to work very well
> in that environment.
As Ruckus beamforming is based on selecting a receiver instead of
combining the signals, it should indeed deal with ducting but not too
well with multi-path.
> No Beam forming is expected from Ubiqui
It should be noted that LTE wouldn't be as good or early available
without mobile WiMAX.
Even if the final outcome is not the network nirvana, it's a lot
better than what was planned by the powerful forces.
Comparing technology only, I think 802.16e failed to achieve a good
PAPR (peak-to-average-p
> OpenWRT and OLSR or BATMAN on a Routerboard or Ubiquiti CPU platform
> may be ideal, but I need to learn more about OLSR and BATMAN in
> practice. BATMAN seems to be a distance-vector algorithm, like, uh,
> DECNET 3 and 4 and IGRP, while OLSR is link state, like OSPF. I am
> partial to link sta
>
> The PtP/PtMP distinction does create interesting ambiguity. But then
My favorite ambiguity is whether the PtP/PtMP distinction applies to
the full-duplex system or per traffic direction... one reading would
say that an uplink(Customer - > WISP) that is made using directive
antennas can follow
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> "that's a few radio hops away from anywhere. And that's one reason why
> per-hop latency is all-critical"
>
> To put things in context... from what we have seen typical latency between
> radios (for a single link) are between 1ms to 2ms...
Your best shot is back-hauling to a good capex x opex point as others
pointed out, but if you find that doesn't work, consider using a mix
of T1 bandwidth and one-way (better price and latency than two-way)
satellite service, and policy-route traffic so some of it (usually web
surfing, cache popull
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
> Redline Redmax AN-100U and UX both use GPS. I know that Airspan and
> Alvarions 3.65 products also use GPS. I believe anything 802.16d/e uses GPS.
802.16d FDD gear (like one from Alvarion) doesn't require GPS if
memory serves me right... 8
RedMAX 3.5 GHz (not for use in the US) products sure use GPS.
RedConnec AN-80i don't.
Is the 3.65 solution based on RedMAX or AN-80 ?
Rubens
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Jerry Richardson
wrote:
> Redline 3.65?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wir
vertical separation on the
tower if possible.
Gut feeling: 1/4 mile is short enough for this to work.
Rubens
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] O
One option to consider is a passive repeater. Wire a coax cable
between the two dishes and you are done... no electronics to fail, no
power to supply on a remote location.
(haven't tested this trick with dual polarity, though)
Rubens
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
> I ha
of them), but I don't
> buy it.
>
> Just a few bloggers trying to make a stink.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 6/5/2010 9:30 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>> I know they call it 4G, but it&#x
I know they call it 4G, but it's not 4G. See
http://www.wirelessweek.com/Archives/2007/10/WiMAX-is-3G/
Even LTE (when deployed) won't be 4G, only LTE Advanced will, but LTE
will be much closer to 4G than WiMAX 802.16e, see
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/4g/3gpp-imt-lte-adva
Making images appear upside-down is more fun:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html
Rubens
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Robert West wrote:
> For fun I name all the private wifi routers to an SSID of "Virus". The
> attempts to connect have dropped considerably.
>
>
>
> -
I think Apple has a position on 11n on 2.4 GHz that their devices
won't do 40 MHz on 2.4 GHz.
Rubens
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> The clients are all Macintosh computers, some the newer MacBooks and some are
> the older MacBooks. They're all Intel based.
>
> Greg
> On M
> BUT... the problem would go away, if we could simply select which chain will
> operate like the primary, and always stay active.
Physically mounting integrated antenna units with 90 degree turn or
inverting antenna connections wouldn't achieve your goal in part ?
(less flexible than remote confi
Multicast ?
Rubens
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Nick Olsen wrote:
> That's about 7 miles north of me :D
>
> You should see the bandwidth spike because everyone in the county watching
> the streams. We also have a customer out at KSC that pushes a stream.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations
I'm not sure about all U-NII bands in the US, but in some countries
one might exceed power spectral density limitations(dBm/MHz) using
narrow channels.
Rubens
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Robert West wrote:
> I have an area that's developed some noise and after watching the spectrum
> an
; Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Rubens Kuhl"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best Backhaul link 11
Only good experience with them. The radios just work. Some were 11
GHz, some were 18 GHz, only one or two 7.5 GHz.
Throughput matched the nominal 200/300/400 Mbps for small packets; for
large packets, 170 out of 200 Mbps and 360 out of 400 Mbps; those
values are consistent with "IP-based" (not SDH/
And what about associating SSIDs with VLANs ?
Rubens
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Jayson Baker wrote:
> You can telnet into the unit and run vconfig to do whatever kind of VLAN'ing
> you want. This is what we do, via an rc. script put in the /etc/persistent
> directory.
> Check the forum.
These are filters that I've designed for AirOS 3.x (Ubiquiti) but you
can get the general idea which is to allow only unicast traffic and
specific broadcast traffic, and then drop everything else. Rules are
backward enumerated and the idea is to have the unicast traffic as the
first match.
rc.po
some of this better than my alvarion 900.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>> That would only be true if the data services are somewhat
>> purpose-specific and not Internet access. Doing what this vendor told
>> you would serio
That would only be true if the data services are somewhat
purpose-specific and not Internet access. Doing what this vendor told
you would seriously affect aggregate performance of the cell because
of low rate modulation of the NLOS and/or distant customers.
If you are doing sensor networks or POS
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:34 PM, RickG wrote:
> Thats leads me to a question. I note RB's website specs for the 450G says:
> Actual tested throughput Ether1 <-> Ether2 = 1Gbps
For large-large-large packets, as these boards are pps limited.
> Ether2 <-> Ether3 = 650Mbps 1Gbps throughput on ports
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>But for the
>>price of Ubiquiti gear it seems very interesting to investigate what
>>could be done.
>
> Well, thats the golden question...
>
> We dont currently use Ubiquiti yet in a live network, but we cant ignore the
> value proposition.
> W
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:00 PM, can...@believewireless.net
wrote:
> After some large "experiments" with Ubiquiti.. Canopy 430 here we
> come! Too many problems with latency and WDS re-reg issues. These
> seem to work pretty well for PtP links, but PtMP is just terrible for
> VoIP or anythin
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Randy Cosby wrote:
> Thanks. Now, on the Motorola 320, for example, the ASN gateway is not
> part of the picture, correct?
According ot its specs, no ASN gateway is required:
"Low Cost Infrastructure The CAP 320 does not require ASN gateways or
specialized CSN s
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Randy Cosby wrote:
> For us WiMAX neophytes, could you explain the ASN gateway and why it's
> on your list of things you don't want?
An ASN gateway sits between the Radio Access Network (where there are
only tunnels from the base station to the ASN GW) and the Cor
3.426.4230 mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:38 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 GHz WiMAX deal
>
> What you call a tot
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
