John,
It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?
On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be
> available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has
> 6-8 deployments
post info shortly thereafter.
John
>-Original Message-
>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 04:14 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>>It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4
on 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
pology, 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 &
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
We are still wa
ion 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]&
J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a
-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up
bruary 22, 2006 08:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>Tom,
>
>You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible
>while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use.
>We should all be thinkin
6 02:32 PM
>To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
>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 th
;
>
>
> -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
&g
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
>
> - 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
Matt,
I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin.
I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being out thought, and I don't
mind being beat.
I sometimes even purposely hypothetically support the minority side, to
spark intelligent debate on the other side.
But I do
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
Tom DeReggi wrote:
No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have
to waste time replicating your research.
Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not
just making claims, but disclosing why.
I recall in an earlier email you making claims without
nhappy comments
appearing on the [Motorola] list.
Rich
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Quoting Tom:
"What often hap
ships"
www.customerconnects.com
613-253-0240 (w)
613-291-2884 (c)
BLOG: http://lindaleepond.blogspot.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA]
ther 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
Quoting Tom:
"What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology."
M
t need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology. Just my 2 cents.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISP
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its
all in one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure,
easy to backup, etc.
What does mesh offer for better complete central management?
You seem to be suggesting that I simply haven't looke
day, February 23, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Tom DeReggi wrote:
No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without
kill
MAtt,
The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.
I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement.
Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its all in
one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, eas
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
-
>
land.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
6.12 (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:
[
Tom DeReggi wrote:
No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without
killing every other in town at the same time.
Mesh doesn't have t
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 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..
Come down and visit some
ROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
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. S
ss
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
t 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&
al 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 t
: [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 micr
-- 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
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 equipm
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
>
>
> > Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traf
-- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid
mesh nodes with only one radio. Cho
gt;
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
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 o
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
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 t
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.
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 overa
ISPlists wrote:
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
Lonnie just released a beta mesh upgrade for sta
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
