RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? Given how different adaptive modulation methods are "optimized" differently for different environments/situations/noise sources-- all I can say is either pay me or RTFM wink there is very good documentation on how the 2nd 2 methods are "programmed" work http://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl I would also recommend that you to some refresher reading on UDP http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc768.html -Charles P.S. -- this isn't meant to be offensive, but this is research that a manufacturer embarks on, as the average operator generally does not posess the requisite level of knowledge to comprehend networking at this level -- the manufacturer makes that 50-100% "value-add / markup / margin" for their work on this issue so that the operator can "hopefully" just plug-in-pray =) P.S.S. -- compared to the licensed / cellular wireless world, the vast majority of license-exempt interference mitigation techniques (e.g., ARQ / adaptive modulation / etc) aren't that great due to the fact that up until now most manufacturers have limited their interference testing to gaussian "white noise" conditions b/c the market is cheap ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:13 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, We have oftenfound that to get adequate UDP performance withoutexcessive packetloss, we need to turn off Adaptive modulationon 802.11 radios (and hard set it). Specifically, we have seen it with Alvarion. You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? This was one of our concerns putting 802.11 gear in place ofourTrango gear that we typicallyprefer because of its abilty to work as well with UDP as TCP. Of course, if Trango had PtMP gear with an External antenna CPE option, that also had non-beta ARQ firmware that didn't lock up constantly, we would not be wasting time on this topic. However they do not yet. So for these cases, we need to use Atheros. It would be nice to find an adaptive modulation/ARQ version that was UDP friendly. Can you offer any feedback on the topic? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample,that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal --- in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :)TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =)
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Charles, Thanks for the links. PS. I understand yourpoints.(You can't give it all away :-). Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:55 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? Given how different adaptive modulation methods are "optimized" differently for different environments/situations/noise sources-- all I can say is either pay me or RTFM wink there is very good documentation on how the 2nd 2 methods are "programmed" work http://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl I would also recommend that you to some refresher reading on UDP http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc768.html -Charles P.S. -- this isn't meant to be offensive, but this is research that a manufacturer embarks on, as the average operator generally does not posess the requisite level of knowledge to comprehend networking at this level -- the manufacturer makes that 50-100% "value-add / markup / margin" for their work on this issue so that the operator can "hopefully" just plug-in-pray =) P.S.S. -- compared to the licensed / cellular wireless world, the vast majority of license-exempt interference mitigation techniques (e.g., ARQ / adaptive modulation / etc) aren't that great due to the fact that up until now most manufacturers have limited their interference testing to gaussian "white noise" conditions b/c the market is cheap ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggiSent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 6:13 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, We have oftenfound that to get adequate UDP performance withoutexcessive packetloss, we need to turn off Adaptive modulationon 802.11 radios (and hard set it). Specifically, we have seen it with Alvarion. You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? This was one of our concerns putting 802.11 gear in place ofourTrango gear that we typicallyprefer because of its abilty to work as well with UDP as TCP. Of course, if Trango had PtMP gear with an External antenna CPE option, that also had non-beta ARQ firmware that didn't lock up constantly, we would not be wasting time on this topic. However they do not yet. So for these cases, we need to use Atheros. It would be nice to find an adaptive modulation/ARQ version that was UDP friendly. Can you offer any feedback on the topic? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample,that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal --- in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Charles, We have oftenfound that to get adequate UDP performance withoutexcessive packetloss, we need to turn off Adaptive modulationon 802.11 radios (and hard set it). Specifically, we have seen it with Alvarion. You mention MadWifi driver has three adaptive modulation methods. Do you know by any chance which one works best to work with UDP traffic? This was one of our concerns putting 802.11 gear in place ofourTrango gear that we typicallyprefer because of its abilty to work as well with UDP as TCP. Of course, if Trango had PtMP gear with an External antenna CPE option, that also had non-beta ARQ firmware that didn't lock up constantly, we would not be wasting time on this topic. However they do not yet. So for these cases, we need to use Atheros. It would be nice to find an adaptive modulation/ARQ version that was UDP friendly. Can you offer any feedback on the topic? When Alvarion 4.0 is releasednext week, we will also be retesting UDP with their adaptive modulation feature. Not that they claim any adpative modulation improvements, but you never know, as they have not disclosed their secret that has allowed mega better small packet voice performance. Maybe its related? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 11:56 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample,that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal --- in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :)TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a "bad" solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while
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? ducking 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
The V3 code on the WAR boards is compatible 802.11a but I would not call it vanilla. This driver is tweaked for performance and we can get about 150 mbps total throughput on the 533 MHz boards. With compression and Turbo mode and using a radio repeater (input radio and output radio) we have clocked 80 mbps through the unit. We find the biggest advance we have made though, is the use of 5 MHz and 10 MHz channels. Although people have this huge desire for the fastest possible speeds we actually see that most people do not even have 10 mbps pipes to the Internet and thus a backbone that can deliver 40 mbps is quite wasted. Using smaller RF channels you can fit 11 Access points on a single tower at 2.4 GHz and they will not really interfere with each other plus you can still achieve 10+ mbps to the customer from each AP. Of course you should maintain proper antenna separation and try to keep adjacent radios a few channels apart. Lonnie On 6/22/06, Stephen Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses a passively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoor grade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the software overhead of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme repackages the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution for real rather than believing the vendor (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the proprietary extension nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect to it using a WiFi or Brand X client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses plain vanilla 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with small packet performance being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K 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? ducking 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
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Dear Travis, We have "end user pricing" and "reseller/WISP" pricing and the two are different; that keeps margin in there for resellers to sell the product on, which is why our price list isn't on the website: just a matter of history, 60-70% of our customers are corporates, not service providers. That may change and we're considering an e-commerce site specifically to support WISP business. For now, to "set expectation" a complete HPR bridge (that's the one that can clock over 80Mbps through it per radio card) is less than half the price suggested by the "subject line" of this post. In quantity that drops further. That price includes all hardware, Passively-cooled HPR radio units with 1GHz CPU with 10/100 and Gig ports, 1 radio card expandable up to 5, POE injectors, pole mount U-boltsand software including fully-licensed RouterOS and our own PC-based RadioManager; comes complete pre-configured to run "out of the box" and with support from ourselves. Doesn't include RF or Ethernet cables. Anyone interested, please send me a mail and you'll get a personalised (human!) response. Have had some good response already. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 23 June 2006 05:14To: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KStephen,Could you share retail pricing on your products? I don't see any pricing listed on your website. I'm sure many people (including myself) could be interested in getting more information, etc. but it's nice to see if the product is even close to the price range we are looking.TravisMicroservStephen Patrick wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49To: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking 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
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Travis, ARQ (which can mean anything) is standard for 802.11 -- (although changing / modifying ARQ mechanisms requires HAL access) A better illustrated example (which doesn't break any NDAs or reveal any major IP) can be shown via adaptive modulation The MADWiFi driver alone gives 3 options for different adaptive modulation schemes, onoe, amrr and sample,that can be chosen - some are better than othershttp://madwifi.org/wiki/UserDocs/RateControl -Charles P.S. -- just like ARQ, not all adaptive modulation schemes are created equal --- in one case, we were able to improve a customer's radio performance by approximately 20% through tweaks in the adaptive modulation thresholds (in their case, they were being too conservative in their backoff of Ethernet traffic and forgetting about their lower level ARQ / FEC mechanisms) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis JohnsonSent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:14 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6KCharles,The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :)TravisMicroservCharles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a "bad" solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features?
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Charles Wu wrote: Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their black box ticks =) Charles, Mikrotik chose not to reveal all the details on their NStreme protocol. However, some things that I do know is that it is basically the 802.11 type MAC. Part of the benefit is that the protocol overhead is reduced (a byproduct of the packet concatenation probably), the distance limitations (timing) has been removed and they have implemented an (optional) polling mechanism. These three combined will improve the overall throughput of the link. There are probably other things that make it a better solution, but this is what jumps to mind. Additionally, they have NStreme2, which is a whole different animal. This protocol is a dual radio system (point to point only) that is designed for backhauls. This protocol is not based on the 802.11 stuff (as far as I know). There is no need for polling with NStreme2. The protocol overhead is very low with NStreme2 and it is robust in the face of interference. With a dual radio (2 on each end of the link), you create a full-duplex capable link. One of the real limitations of either NStreme or NStreme2 is that they require an Atheros based card. That may not be a big deal to some, but it is something worth mentioning. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 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/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a performance gain as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more interference resistant than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as stock 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from vendor products I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking 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 thebenefits 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 utilizescombination 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 amountSIFs 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. Whatare the parameters forthe 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 isthis 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) ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://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/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their black box ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a bad solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a performance gain as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more interference resistant than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as stock 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Charles, The other "advantage" I have been told about Nstreme is it incorporates the equivalent of ARQ into the protocol. The other hidden advantage is it makes it impossible for people to sniff the air for my signals unless they are using another MT with Nstreme box. :) Travis Microserv Charles Wu wrote: Hi John, Right or wrong, in the context of throughput efficiency, the documentation I have seen regarding N-stream leads me to believe that frame concatenation is the main method utilized by the protocol. Would you care to expand/enlighten further (I am sure there are a lot of other inquisitive types like me who like to know how the insides of their "black box" ticks =) -Charles P.S. -- I think you took my comments out of context -- I am by no means implying that Mikrotik is a "bad" solution -- in fact, I personally happen to like it a lot --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Tully Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Charles, Usually I don't reply to 'opinions' like this. But, you have written things that you know nothing about and acted as if you are an authority on it. Concerning our Atheros wireless support. We were one of the first companies to ever support the Atheros for WISP systems in year 2000, we supported the AR5000 5GHz only card. Before that we supported the RadioLAN in 5GHz. We have written our drivers from the datasheet up. If you take a close look, you will see allot of wireless features that are unique -- such as dual Nstreme, wireless sniffer, WPA2 with local keys... It is up too the customers to decide how good they think the system is. John www.mikrotik.com At 01:16 AM 6/22/2006, you wrote: Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotik point-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trango and Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com/ http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware,
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message-From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49To: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Screenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 83Mbps UDP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20UDP.pngScreenshot of NMS from full-speed lab testing, 74Mbps TCP/IP traffic with ~20% CPU loadhttp://www.cablefreesolutions.com/radio/HPR%20lab%20testing%20TCP.png Hi Steven, Wouldn't it be funny if the Alvarion product was actually Mikrotik Nstream? ducking 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 thebenefits 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 utilizescombination 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 amountSIFs 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. Whatare the parameters forthe 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
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Stephen, Could you share retail pricing on your products? I don't see any pricing listed on your website. I'm sure many people (including myself) could be interested in getting more information, etc. but it's nice to see if the product is even close to the price range we are looking. Travis Microserv Stephen Patrick wrote: Hi Charles, Well I can't comment on what software Alvarion uses - they of course can. Sure we can share more information with people on our solution. It uses apassively-cooled, 1GHz CPU in outdoorgrade housing with a powerful architecture capable of driving 5 radio cards with over 200Mbps bridged wireless-ethernet throughput demonstrated in P2MP configuration. It has both 10/100 POE and Gig-E ports. Several users tell us that's a pretty unique solution on the market just now. The Routerboards are great, but are optimised for a completely different cost/performance point. Apples and Oranges. You are right that on slower platforms, the "software overhead" of Nstreme actually reduces net throughput, i.e. CPU is limiting and the extra processing slows things down. On our boxes the opposite is true, the radio cards are the limiting factor and we can extract the very last bps/pps from them. Re: your comment about MT's documentation, we have our own user manuals for customers, to support our product range. Nstreme "repackages" the data into frames, which with polling greatly improves P2MP performance as well as the huge improvements seen on P2P links. This is reality not myth. I'd strongly recommend trying the solution "for real" rather than "believing the vendor" (us in this case). Coupled with a MT-based CPE (we have our own also, now at pretty aggressive prices in volume) you have major benefits in a P2MP environment and the security improvements that are inherent with the "proprietary extension" nature of Nstreme - you can't see or connect toit using a WiFi or "Brand X" client. I am sure other users can comment on the latest StarOS versions, but AFAIK that uses "plain vanilla" 802.11a with the Atheros WiFi extensions. That isn't the same, MT's Nstreme adds a completely new layer, with "small packet performance" being a major benefit, as other users commented. I think Lonnie is on this list and can comment on the latest in StarOS/StarVX. Best regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 23 June 2006 00:49 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K 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? ducking 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 thebenefits 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 utilizescombination 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 amountSIFs 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. Whatare the parameters forthe framer-limit setting (if 3200 lets me concatenate 2 packets, wouldn't 5800 work even better as I would be able to
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. I disagree for several reasons. Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT be a double standard between Cable and Telcos. The reason is that Telcos and Cable Companmies are BOTH similar types of companies as far as monoply status, franchise, and/or goliath dominant player status (in volume). Wireless Broadband is NOT the same type of industry. Wireless- limited on spectrum. Wireless- limited on capacity (not infinately replicateable) Wireless- predominantly serves underserved areas. Wireless- predominantly newly installed and unsubsidized (although MUNI could changed that) Wireless- Full of minority (record low size) small providers. Laws need to protect consumer interests, to pass. Consumers want wireless providers and benefit from them. They want policies that will allow wireless providers to grow and succeed. Its jsut an education problem to teach people the justification of why the double standard should exist. Second double standards exist ALL the time in politics. The goal is to get the bill past, and to negotiate will all the people that potentially may protest the bill to keep it from passing. Politics promises exceptions for special interests to buy their support for a bill that will help a larger common good if passed. Its just like plea bargining, giving a small time criminal amnisty if they tetsify against the larger more evil criminal. Or its like the new high power rules for smart antennas, which actually were put i place to accommodate 1 manufacturer that had a smart antenna technology to bring to market. Basically rewards a company that has some unique contribution. In this case it was a smart antenna to reduce interference to others. Wireless has a unique donation. The abilty to be able to cost effectively serve little holes of underserved areas. Putting regulation on small wireless providers could seriously hinder their abilty to offer services without risk, and reduce deployments. Exceptions can be made, if they are jsutified. Thats how a bill gets made, every aspect of the bill is negotiated to meet everyone's interests. What isn;t allowed is rule limiting or burdening specific companies. I'm not asking to target a specifc comapny or a pecific compant to be excempt. I am asking for a technology to be exempt, a technology that has different characteristics and can be used by any provider to offer services. So is it really a double standard? Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: David Sovereen To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us that. For years, telephone companies have been heavily regulated while cable companies have not. DSL was subject to regulation. Cable was not. In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X Internet Supreme Court Decision. The FCC deregulated DSL and is working toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium. The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, broadband over powerlines,whatever you can think of --to be subject to the same rules and regulations. Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to cable and DSL and not to wirelessjust isn't realistic. We need to support that which is good for all broadband providers. If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that way. If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants to. Matt's network is Matt's network. He built it. He designed it. He can do with is as he wants. My network is my network. I built it. I designed it. I feel it is my right to do with is as I want. If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another service. Letsupply and demand and free-market economics decide who wins and who fails, not government. Don't let the government regulate what we do and how we do it. I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their way. According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and not likely to see any action this election year. Nonetheless, I'd like to know WISPA's position on this. This is an issue that, if passed, would have effects on many of WISPA's members. This is the type of issue
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Earl Comstock stated it best at ISPCON last year: The reason we are in the mess we call telecom today is that 300 companies with an army of lawyers and lobbyists spent $100's of millions to tell Congress the FCC to regulate them and not us. Regulation generally does NOT work that way. You don't have the money, power or levergae to lobby to have WBB excluded from the regulation. If WBB gets excluded, so too does cellular and probably all of it, since the language of bills would never be able to differentiate correctly. I have spoken to too enough staffers, researchers, reporters and Congress Critters to know that they do NOT know what they are talking about here. (Watch the hearings... No clue. Sometimes even the witnesses make no sense). - Peter Tom DeReggi wrote: While it may sound great to have a double standard law, it isn't realistic. I disagree for several reasons. Recent FCC trends have showed that there should NOT be a double standard between Cable and Telcos. The reason is that Telcos and Cable Companmies are BOTH similar types of companies as far as monoply status, franchise, and/or goliath dominant player status (in volume). Wireless Broadband is NOT the same type of industry. Wireless- limited on spectrum. Wireless- limited on capacity (not infinately replicateable) Wireless- predominantly serves underserved areas. Wireless- predominantly newly installed and unsubsidized (although MUNI could changed that) Wireless- Full of minority (record low size) small providers. Laws need to protect consumer interests, to pass. Consumers want wireless providers and benefit from them. They want policies that will allow wireless providers to grow and succeed. Its jsut an education problem to teach people the justification of why the double standard should exist. Second double standards exist ALL the time in politics. The goal is to get the bill past, and to negotiate will all the people that potentially may protest the bill to keep it from passing. Politics promises exceptions for special interests to buy their support for a bill that will help a larger common good if passed. Its just like plea bargining, giving a small time criminal amnisty if they tetsify against the larger more evil criminal. Or its like the new high power rules for smart antennas, which actually were put i place to accommodate 1 manufacturer that had a smart antenna technology to bring to market. Basically rewards a company that has some unique contribution. In this case it was a smart antenna to reduce interference to others. Wireless has a unique donation. The abilty to be able to cost effectively serve little holes of underserved areas. Putting regulation on small wireless providers could seriously hinder their abilty to offer services without risk, and reduce deployments. Exceptions can be made, if they are jsutified. Thats how a bill gets made, every aspect of the bill is negotiated to meet everyone's interests. What isn;t allowed is rule limiting or burdening specific companies. I'm not asking to target a specifc comapny or a pecific compant to be excempt. I am asking for a technology to be exempt, a technology that has different characteristics and can be used by any provider to offer services. So is it really a double standard? 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/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
I am and always have been a StarOS fan. They came out on top when we where initially tested various products 2 years ago and have been great since however we had to revisited RouterOS recently when we noticed that the majority of our traffic was 100 - 200 byte packets which was killing our WAR based backhaul links. We tested a pair of WAR board running the latest V3 next to a pair of WRAP's (yes WRAP's) running RouterOS and found that with small packets the WRAP's running RouterOS and N-Streme actually outperformed the WAR's. The conclusion is that if you're looking for a solution that can push a high amount of large packets the WAR platform from Valemount is great but if you are looking to load your network with real internet traffic and VoIP then RouterOS has the edge (at the moment ;). I am really interested to see the V4 Alvarion product tested side by side a high spec RouterOS based product like the ones Stephen Patrick's company produces. I'd also be interested to hear from Alvarion what is better about their platform than a well built Mikrotik unit. P www.skyline-networks.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/370 - Release Date: 20/06/2006 -- 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
Title: Message Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotikpoint-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trangoand Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into the HAL and RF hardware portion (in the case more so for Alvarion Trango than Star-OS, which still utilizes cheap(er) off-the-shelf mini-PCIs) to optimize Rf throughput performance of their Atheros based systems On a 11a chipset, Trango gets ~40 Mb, Alvarion gets ~30 Mb (though this may be changing w/ their new v4.0) and StarOS *supposedly* gets ~30 Mb That said, then there's the question of user need -- am I willing to sacrifice an additional 20-30% bandwidth efficiency and save additional in exchange for having a lot of other built-in nifty and useful features? -Charles ---CWLabTechnology Architectshttp://www.cwlab.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen PatrickSent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:45 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the "end product" we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The "extras" (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as "extra boxes" suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the "e-mail us" variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik "performance gains" might not apply if you were to take a "DIY approach": performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently "performance better than Brand X" even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from "vendor products" I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another "chink" to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a "jack of all trades" solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a "wireless" solution (in this "do-it-yourself" genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul,
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: Message Charles, Excellent points. However to expand on that. Mikrotik added software feature is looked at as added value but in some cases looked at as a negative feature. For example, sometimes all I want is an easy to install bridge. I take a Trango out of the box, and bam its working, and I can't screw it up. Mikrotik on the other hand, I get confused jsut looking at it, because all the options I have to configure and screw things up :-) For example, Trango does normalfull bridging by default, Mikrotik you got to customizeWDS in a specific way to get it right. I'd argue that Mikrotik's largest value is not software, but hardware flexibilty. A board all preloaded and ready to go with the software preloaded, with flexible Wireless card add-ons. Its valuable to say for an extra $50 I can add a repeater radio, or extra $100 I can add a 900Mhz repeater to the existing radio, or for $50 I can add a HotSpot Radio with a second Omni. The cost to expand Mikrotik is pennies compared to any other solution on the market. But to reap the benefits of low cost expansion the backhaul link from the initial CPE radio has to also be Mikrotik. So in a sense its accepting a small trade offfor thefirst layer (CPEs) from cell site,to gain low cost easy expansion. Quite honestly, today is probably the first day I tried to use a Mikrotik feature otehr than how to bridge and pass large packets. My Linksys does everythign else I need for $50. Sure Mikrotik's software is very feature rich, and probably the best value on the market, but the true value is flexibilty to have multi-port radios expandable as needed. Based on that arguement, Mikrotik is bundled in with StarOS. Alvarion's strength on the other hand, is top notch support. Its not uncommon for Alvarion to send an engineer onsite to help (FOR FREE!!!). And a product out of teh box ALL INTACT. Not connections (MiniPCI/Pigtail) to fail. And best of class RF firmware. (Class being defined as Atheros based 802.11a). Its funny, I am actually about 50/50 on wether I use StarOS or Mikrotik for appropriate projects.STAROS is easier to configure and teach how to configure,so I like to use it. Mikrotik, addstechnical features needed such as VirtualAP, WDS bridging w/ VLAN, etc.There are some jobs, that only Mikrotik could deliver the solution. Because oif that if I had to pick one over the other I'd ahve to select Mikrotik. But I'm not forced to make that choice, I can use both. An example where I use StarOS is serving three or four homes on a culdasack from one common backhaul antenna.Put an residential end user in front of a Mikrotik Enterface, and they are super lost. Its powerful but not easy. Learning is involved. But in StarOS, because its text, in a pull down menu format, its much easier to walk end users over the phone how to use it and check stuff. Not that end users usually need to. But its the little things like how to tell if associated and the received signal strength. Its the first thing the end user sees when they ssh in. With Alvarion, none ofthese things are relevant. The fact that a Alvarion radio is inline, is hidden to the consumer. Only the service provider interacts with it. Instead its purpose is to add the most reliable product for delivering the RF solution. All three products have their value, jsut the value proposition is different. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Stephen, Regarding performance gains, it is worth defining what is meant by that term, as it can be vague and extremely misleading For example, if my solution required a router, the fact that Mikrotik had built in routing, while Alvarion did not, could be interpreted just as much as being a "performance gain" as Alvarion being (according to Tom D) more "interference resistant" than Mikrotik In our context, I was referring to specifically the wireless context from a wireless standpoint, Mikrotik hasn't done anything IMO extraordinary (at least they have HAL access though =) -- testing raw aggregate throughput on Mikrotikpoint-to-point systems yields generally similar throughput and packet per second numbers as "stock" 11a solutions -- now Nstream does offer some nifty features, but those are more upper MAC related (e.g., polling to solve contention-based MAC allocation) This isn't meant to say that Mikrotik has a bad wireless driver, rather, IMO, Mikrotik's value-add is more its integration of multiple features (that many other products don't support) On the other hand, others, like Alvarion, Trangoand Star-OS (we haven't finished testing Star-OS yet) -- have spent more effort diving into
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi there, Not detracting from this great debate, but I'd have to make some Mikrotik comments at this point. We use their OS in our radios and the end product we have on the market does out-perform several well-known brands in terms of many parameters including throughput, stability and RX sensitivity. The extras (essentials for some customers) i.e. L3 features, wireless extensions, security add huge value and reduce total network cost as extra boxes suddenly vanish. Shameless plug, we not only offer completed products with warranty but training and full tech support (not the e-mail us variety: real people to speak to, on-site presence when it matters, etc). Of course Mikrotik performance gains might not apply if you were to take a DIY approach: performance can be terrible on the wrong hardware, tech support absent and you wouldn't have vital (legally required) certifications either. But as a vendor having built and shipped wireless products that use RouterOS and hearing the (cynical and wireless savvy) customer feedback saying consistently performance better than Brand X even comparing a simple L2 wireless bridge then I'd have to voice support for the OS. Sure do compare with Star-OS and others; or a real DIY: build it from bare hardware and FreeBSD/Linux with WiFi drivers or whatever... but as this thread came from vendor products I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Regards Stephen CableFree Solutions www.cablefreesolutions.com -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 20:15 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 To: WISPA General List Subject:
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. Figuring it correctly: just my 1.0871p worth :-) -- 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
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Nice one Jeff... Absolutely right - and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people) :-) -Original Message- From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth. Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. Figuring it correctly: just my 1.0871p worth :-) -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
I only mentioned Mikrotik as its abilty to pass large packets has been tested. I believe we couldn't do that with StarOS as a limitation of Wifi clients (although not positive, as I did not investigate WDS options on StarOS which allows the large packets and full passing bridge features.) With that asside, I guess it would be fair to consider StarOS, Ikarus, and Mikrotik as the same class product. I actually wanted to classify it by hardware class such as OEM Atheros products. But technically thatdefinition would include Alvarion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Hi Tom, Not to add another chink to your debate -- but it is worth noting that Mikrotik is more of a jack of all trades solution (they do routing, hotspot, etc) than a wireless solution While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 1024 37.02/4432 44.82/5366 1280 38.93/3743 45.99/4422 1518 36.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, and they want, they switch.The trouble come in when there is monopoly or large scale advantage.Just because one does not like the actions of theirmonoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the option to switch based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to a much larger group of people.Net Neutrality is required to protect against monster companies unscrupulously controling the market (or Internet ). Thus opening up the arguement that a double standard law easilly could be justified, controllingTelcos and Cable companies but not small independants. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Stephen Patrick To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Nice one Jeff... Absolutely right - and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people) :-) -Original Message- From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K "I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth." Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. Figuring it correctly: "just my 1.0871p worth" :-) -- 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.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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/
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
While they do an ok job w/ wireless, IMO, their strength is more the convenience coming from the integration of multiple packages and its flexibility rather than the performance of any single feature If you're looking at purely a wireless solution (in this do-it-yourself genre) -- you need to include Star-OS / Ikarus in your evaluation (but then, documentation gets a bit sparse there...) -Charles Mikrotik provides an advanced wireless solution that Star-Os /Ikarus DO NOT, in several different ways, 1st, they provide a polling solution for PTMP (nstream) and they also provide an FDX solution for PTP using Nstream2, this is all with the same hardware/radio's. 2nd, using the additional features of the L3, you can load balance across 2 radio's for a faster HDX solution ( maybe this could be done w/ star-os/ikarus, not sure) And there is more you can do by combining those 2 solutions. Dan -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.1/369 - Release Date: 06/19/2006 -- 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
Title: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K While it may sound great to have a "double standard law," it isn't realistic. Recent FCC ruling trends tell us that. For years, telephone companies have been heavily regulated while cable companies have not. DSL was subject to regulation. Cable was not. In a way, this brings us back to the Brand X Internet Supreme Court Decision. The FCC deregulated DSL and is working toward regulatory parity for all broadband services, regardless of medium. The FCC wants all broadband services -- cable, DSL, wireless, satellite, broadband over powerlines,whatever you can think of --to be subject to the same rules and regulations. Expecting/lobbying/hoping for rules to apply to cable and DSL and not to wirelessjust isn't realistic. We need to support that which is good for all broadband providers. If Matt Loitta doesn't want to filter, prioritize, or restrict his network, I fully support his decision to run his network that way. If there were legislation being proposed that required operators to filter, prioritize, restrict, or otherwise manipulate network services, I would be against it, and I would support Matt's right to run his network how he wants to. Matt's network is Matt's network. He built it. He designed it. He can do with is as he wants. My network is my network. I built it. I designed it. I feel it is my right to do with is as I want. If my customers don't like my service, they can sign up or another service. Letsupply and demand and free-market economics decide who wins and who fails, not government. Don't let the government regulate what we do and how we do it. I hope that all of you (and WISPA) will support my right to run my network my way and for others to run their network their way. According to USIIA, this issue is largely dead and not likely to see any action this election year. Nonetheless, I'd like to know WISPA's position on this. This is an issue that, if passed, would have effects on many of WISPA's members. This is the type of issue that, I think, WISPA should be encouraging its members to write congresspeople about. Regards, Dave - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K The secret of Net Neutrality is that there is no harm in NOT HAVING NET NEutrality for under dog small providers. Market pressures FORCE us to not unnecessisarilly block access. If we block, and they want, they switch.The trouble come in when there is monopoly or large scale advantage.Just because one does not like the actions of theirmonoply provider, does not mean they will ahve the option to switch based on the fact that if they did, they risk being block to a much larger group of people.Net Neutrality is required to protect against monster companies unscrupulously controling the market (or Internet ). Thus opening up the arguement that a double standard law easilly could be justified, controllingTelcos and Cable companies but not small independants. Tom DeReggiRapidDSL Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Stephen Patrick To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Nice one Jeff... Absolutely right - and our over-priced currency deserves some stick, not us (the people) :-) -Original Message- From: Jeff Broadwick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 June 2006 21:07 To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K "I thought it worth chipping in - just my £0.01's worth." Now that's harsh...the English Pence isn't worth 2 cents...yet. Figuring it correctly: "just my 1.0871p worth" :-) -- 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.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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/
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Patrick, I have to agree with you that is some exciting data. However, I don't want the world to forget one of the core reasons to chose Alvarion. And it has nothing to do with new features. The abilty to have higher capacity links (14-24 mbps real), using OFDM, and being able to pull off the links because it has a high quality/high gain/low maintenance/Easy-to-Mount CPE antenna option. And VLAN at the CPE. The efficient packet per second data of 4.0 firmware of course is enormous for VOIP. 10Mhz channel options to help make up for single pol inflexibilty. Those are some of the reasons we are looking to Alvarion this year for expansion in areas where we can survive with verticle polarity only. Its a combination of all these things that create the value proposition. What I will say is that Alvarion is NOT the only manufacturer out there with some new VOIP enhancements about to be released to their radios. VOIP is becoming one of the most important criteria to support on wireless effectively. Vendors will need strong VOIP support to stay competitive. But Vendors will not be able to compete on the VOIP features alone. Vendors will compete by being able to offer the most complete solution of many required features. The 4.0 Firmware was exciting to hear about. But what I'd really like to hear about is that new low cost CPE or CPE price reduction that has been rumored the past few months. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:56 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 1024 37.02/4432 44.82/5366 1280 38.93/3743 45.99/4422 1518 36.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
Paul, Although many have reported very high speeds with Mikrotik. Our live tests in noisy environments (wether accepted as accurate or not) showed we were not able to get the peak speeds out of Mikrotik where we could get them from Alvarion. Our comparative tests were done with the Alvarion ver 3 firmware (not 4 yet). The Alvarion speeds that we got were right on the numbers with the speeds test Alvarion tech support sent us. Actually our tested speeds were a bit higher in some some cases. (Take note we only got accurate speeds when we hard set modulation to optimal (picked the best one for the situation) modulation for testing). I do not mean this as a negative comment on Mikrotik. Our competition to Alvarion is NOT Trango, Trango does not yet have a 20 mbps product for PtMP. We look at our Trango as the best choice to tackle the worse noisy environments (for us almost everywhere :-) Our competition for Alvarion is actually Mikrotik. Mikrotik probably has the single highest value from a feature cost perspective. Why pay Alvarion price, when Mikrotik can do almost the same thing at a fraction of the cost. Mikrotik has changed this market and forced competing vendors to look at how to be more competitive. Mikrotik is doing what Trango did 4 years ago to drive the price down. (I'd argue that Trango is still doing it also). It will be real interesting to see how Alvarion performs side by side to Mikrotik. The initial look show to me that Alvarion adds significant features that make it the premium choice, possibly the leader in OFDM today, if price not part of the consideration. However, Mikrotik's flexibilty and price clearly will keep them a major player for many WISPs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 1024 37.02/4432 44.82/5366 1280 38.93/3743 45.99/4422 1518 36.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP
RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K
So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 102437.02/4432 44.82/5366 128038.93/3743 45.99/4422 151836.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- 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 (191). * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- 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
Are these figures in the lab? I have seen similar with a Mikrotik/N-Streme solution. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: 16 June 2006 19:57 To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] frame size and fps - was OT: about 70Mbps for under $ 6K So I have more data for you Matt I just received about what firmware 4.0 delivers in terms of frame sizes and what it can mean to the business case. Remember, this is multipoint, not PtP. All Mbps numbers are NET throughput: Frame size Upstream Mbps/FPS Downstream Mbps/FPS 64 32.18/47893 40.29/59952 128 34.7/29308 43.79/36982 256 37.68/17065 45.03/20392 512 38.41/9025 45.51/10693 102437.02/4432 44.82/5366 128038.93/3743 45.99/4422 151836.69/2982 44.63/3627 This is a dramatic improvement, first in terms of net throughput the numbers are huge and I am pretty sure no other PMP system can get close to them. But the main accomplishment is a total leveling of capacity regardless of the frame size. This results in much higher predictability and ability to capacity plan. This takes net throughput over 700% higher using small 64bit frame than the previous version. Frankly it really is an exceptional achievement that will enable operators to offer very high value services even to large enterprise. With this version of BreezeACCESS VL an operator could sell an 8 voice lines/6Mbps of data to 20 enterprise customers in a single sector with a 5:1 over subscription with a voice MOS of 4.0 or higher. And with a SOHO type service like 2 voice lines and 3Mbps of data you could have 160 customers PER sector at a 20:1 over subscription. That will produce some exceptional ARPU. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately. We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the industry. -Matt -- 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 (191). * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(42). -- 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: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 15/06/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database:
