List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Hi Chuck,
Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as
expected.
Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10
Mhz
channels, that they only line up
Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz
channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like the
Star OS base AP, that can slide back and forth to the edges. Are we missing
something...what are you guys doing in a crowded environment with
Hi Chuck,
Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as
expected.
Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz
channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:
If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as
the host OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or... on top.
It's not that it was something I needed, but am using it since it
is already installed. In order to get the particular
Message -
From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't
think they are ending x86 support any time soon.
The package
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:
They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who.
It's in the FCC docs.
IIRC, the MT cards are relabled Compex cards.
--
*Butch Evans*Professional
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Patient wrote:
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen).
Got Jim, too...he meant Virtualization (Xen). :-)
--
*Butch Evans*Professional Network
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:
Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying
about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and
USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen.
You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:
Right
Villarini wrote:
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling...
gino
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject:
22, 2008 12:11 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Hi,
I would have bet any amount of money that I saw polling as an option
in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to
find it. :(
Travis
Randy Cosby wrote:
Where is the polling you refer
Visualization?
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
?
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Very seriously
?
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant
Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Patient" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45...
Better ethernet configuration options
5 10 40 channels support
gino
DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now. Didn't have much luck with it as a
client (on a NS5), but haven't tried
]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So
now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
all on one Mikrotik box
: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
for outdoor
Randy Cosby wrote:
Is polling like token passing?
Say something like http://frottle.sourceforge.net/ ?
Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or
something? I haven't noticed it.
Randy
--
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known
There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and
Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more. Things like
firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc. And they have had
a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations. All of mine
just work. Oh,
DD-WRT does run on the NS.
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling
Matt,
Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number
of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth,
yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no
issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the
bandwidth
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware.
The oswave has polling...
gino
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik
community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more
sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;)
First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the
to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling...
gino
-Original Message-
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt
Butch,
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated
that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is
in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They
would have to build a new OS for that processor.
Travis
Microserv
: [WISPA] Nanostations
Travis Johnson wrote:
Matt,
I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part.
Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available
for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using
Mikrotik is because
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the
CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current
MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that
Afaik the latests Mk builds are ATheros cpu focused, all the latest mikrotik
routerboards are atheros based
gino
-Original Message-
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:36 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
If I remember correctly, it was only like $10 or $20 more.
Here's the difference the Crossroads (which I have deployed) still
requires a PoE, antenna, pigtail, etc. bringing the cost up to over
$150... and then you are still stuck with a vertical or horizontal
system, and not FCC
Really... I did not know that... I will contact Ubiquiti about getting
a 16M version so I can try and load MT on it. :)
Travis
Microserv
Butch Evans wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:
You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already
stated that
I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory.
- Original Message -
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote
Travis,
I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and
customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg
connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear
would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all
of the issues
Matt,
Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth
is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a
reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling"
system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available
bandwidth...
.
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Matt,
Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is
different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs
I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least
the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload
that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest
upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily
at that
@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has
support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to
support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get
Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone?
On Sun
All are the same platform, the differ only on the form factor and antennas
gino
-Original Message-
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:19 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.
Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No,
their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years
they are
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus
and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to
only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this
will bring your AP to
*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Ferre
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one customer with computer
Mk can buy nanostations in bulk,
-Original Message-
From: Matt Ferre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like
Never really had a major problem with this. Just keep P2P apps limited
at the core router, no intercell relay and connection limits per customer.
It would be nice if there was a polling implementation that could be
easily implemented with standards-based equipment instead of proprietary
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput?
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Matt Ferre wrote:
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second.
Get just one
Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new
connection. P2P apps will be doing the same.
On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the
IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like
Because that would:
1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development
and which (obviously) they prefer to sell,
2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT,
which was supposed to be
The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes),
it is the network layers job to keep track of that. If packets are
getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends. It shouldn't
matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what
program
One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their'
version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the
momentum.
First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse
in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at
that time became
This only applies to already open TCP connections. If the application
keeps opening new TCP connections, or better, uses UDP flood on a
purpose, it will not be affected by dropped packets in any way.
On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The application layer knows nothing about
PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.
Who exactly would benefit from
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
Travis
Microserv
Matt Ferre wrote:
Because that would:
1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete
control on, on which they already spent
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than
they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying
hundreds per month of now).
If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software
ASAP.
Travis
Matt Ferre wrote:
One more note. Mikrotik
]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't
exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly
see why.
Who exactly would benefit from
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.
On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they
currently make on the Crossroads
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember
how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company
that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard?
For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from
istributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Ferre
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets
istributor for www.itelite.net Antennas*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Matt Ferre
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the p
: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card
capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards and
saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people seeing that
mess going on.
The question
PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember
how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company
that wrote software for specific hardware
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT,
dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough
for most of us.
A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
Maybe Mikrotik
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money.
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
that already
But I'm not. I never bought MT based clients precisely because they
were too expensive. While I would like to have the control to do all of
the ROS things on the client radio I could not justify the expense of
purchasing the components and assembling the final product to deploy.
MT could
PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp
client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us.
A lot of things
20, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
that already has
Yup... it's the Catch 22 scenario... :(
Travis
Matt Ferre wrote:
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and
Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it.
On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mikrotik would make MORE
] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp
client/server, ppp client
Why not just the normal, regular version?
Blair Davis wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119
price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :)
If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to
Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either
List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
You know,
It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either...
It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp
client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of
us.
A lot of things could
Flash size and memory limits?
fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted.
Travis Johnson wrote:
Why not just the normal, regular version?
Blair Davis wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing,
but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;)
Travis
Blair Davis wrote:
Flash size and memory limits?
fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with
Charles Wu wrote:
Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to
being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with
the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those
products are paying for the extra RD effort
did not catch that. all good.
on the other hand, they might make a 'client only' flash that fit in
the smaller space if they were worried about impacting their higher end
gear sales?
Travis Johnson wrote:
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that
have 16Meg
] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Charles,
I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I
am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I
will still use
Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo
1) 3 year warranty
2) Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good
luck getting them consistently.
3) Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers.
There are already some questions about the durability of
I believe someone else on here said you can get them with 16 mb flash.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Blair Davis
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question
Charles,
I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I
am now deploying
else?
-Charles
---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
@wispa.org
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this.
- Original Message -
From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations
I think for the most part those that would like something like this and
have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or
support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment
that already has the license
85 matches
Mail list logo
