Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE? Yes I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango? Can do that too. Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does it? Not per VLAN, but per SM. How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's? Trango has no support for it. PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it. First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you don't want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment. Second, if you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer that service is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on radios doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that Canopy and Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick for our business model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems could completely change our point-of-view though. -Matt On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and Syncing feature of Canopy. I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many cases. However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new customer is jsut a CPE. PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy) PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango) PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango) And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay $200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas. One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their capacity. PTP deployments prevent that. There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for the end game. But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if leasing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5 Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on the same channel. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
customer isn't going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either. I thought that was the point I was trying to get across. Thus my recommendation for a high quality switch. SMC AL2 series managed switches. Have a Cisco type firmware. IVL supported, unlike the older switch models. $180 each. Never had one fail in the history of our company. We use them all over the place. Allthough the Cisco like telnet interface is confusing. (with the exception of when water dripped through the inside of a gel filled CAT5 cable for 350 feet, and dripped into an open jack, shorting it out, because I had it mounted not considering the possibilty of water dripping.) Everyone wants to save money if it doesn't compromise the offering. People don't buy Orthogon because its expensive they buy it because its the product that is required to solve the problem (Non-LOS). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE? Yes I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango? Can do that too. Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does it? Not per VLAN, but per SM. How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's? Trango has no support for it. PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it. First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you don't want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment. Second, if you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer that service is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either. -Matt -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, We've been through this debate a number of times comparing PTP models to PtMP models, and which is better. I am in no way saying PtP models are not good, just different things to consider, neither better. The acceptabilty of PtMP model has nothing to do with ARPU of subscriber. I can support $800 ARPU customers off of PtMP model with no problem at all. Viabilty of PTMP model has to do with how fast rate of growth will happen. It has taken us a long time to fill up the capacity of our PtMP network. And because our coverage range is so large, (30 cell sites), our custoemrs come in from all over the place, not necessarilly saturating the capacity of a single cell site or sector. We find that sales always takes longer than people think, so PtMP often has plenty of capacity. Why pay roof rights on antennas, that are under used? A business model can be made to jsutify PtP links, no doubt. But jsut because you can get top ARPU from customers and justify the expendatures, is no reason to pay more cost than you need to. Maximum profit is made from increasing revenue and REDUCING COSTS, regardless of wether you need to. PtMP REDUCES cost in early stages. Remember a PTMP system can always be upgraded by adding PTP links later to expand capacity, and migrate to a PTP model when needed. The decission to go PTP should be made because of the long term labor savings, because you did everything from the beginning optimally to reduce future rebuilding. Or for interference link quality reasons. I personally do not care about the labor. I got good engineers at $15 an hour to do the upgrades. I figure by the time I need the faster dedicated PTP links the technology will be better cheaper and different. Others that use contractors at hefty labor costs, would care more about long term labor saving, and preventing replication of work. The biggest differenciator is wether you ahve high roof right fees to pay. If you are not paying much for roof rights, there is little harm in spending the money for additional antennas. I think once a provider as learned a proven growth rate (speed) of what they can accomplish, and have a record of their average costs (roof rights) they can make the decission of wether a PtMP or PTP model is best. It also depends on the assets of the provider. Eventually for ALL companies credit limits could potentially get exceeded iftheir growth rate was fast enough. Unless the provider is a billionaire. Very few people lease on future revenue, business plans, and credit alone (with fair terms). Almost all require assets to secure the lease amount other than the radio value. 100 radios at $10,000 each (say Redline PTP) is a million dollars. PTP can get out of hand quick if someone does serious scale quickly. As a matter of fact, stating PTP helps a provider reach a cash flow positive state and healthy books, to speed up a companies abilty to get financing for PTP expansion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on radios doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that Canopy and Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick for our business model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems could completely change our point-of-view though. -Matt On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and Syncing feature of Canopy. I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many cases. However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new customer is jsut a CPE. PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy) PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango) PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango) And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay $200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas. One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their capacity. PTP deployments prevent that. There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for the end game. But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if leasing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago. Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such as MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time. (although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their newer firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago) Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE? I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango? Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does it? How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's? If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature, that is underpublicized, that buyers should consider. VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango to add for years, unfortuneately they have not yet. Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they probably will, as it would be really easy for them to add it. I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually put a router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't necessary for the radio itself to supprot VLAN. Although, Trango's builtin bandwidth management would be usable if they supported VLANs and allowed assigning bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber radio. The largest reason we had to commit to using our own bandwdith management platform is the inabilty to distinguish between radios that supported jsut one subscriber versus a building full of multiple subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio enabled bandwidth management. If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we could have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name brand appliances that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked the bandwidth management features that were essential (such as CISCO). PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Great. 1540 covers just about all needs I can think of off the top of my head. I forget exactly what IPSEC used, but I believe it is less than 1540 as well. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Canopy does support 802.1Q at the CPE for both the customer's ethernet interface and the built-in management interface. Not sure about VLAN prioritization but there is some sort of high-priority queue mechanism for voice or other critical traffic. Patrick Tom DeReggi wrote: One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago. Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such as MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time. (although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their newer firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago) Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE? I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango? Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does it? How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's? If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature, that is underpublicized, that buyers should consider. VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango to add for years, unfortuneately they have not yet. Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they probably will, as it would be really easy for them to add it. I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually put a router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't necessary for the radio itself to supprot VLAN. Although, Trango's builtin bandwidth management would be usable if they supported VLANs and allowed assigning bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber radio. The largest reason we had to commit to using our own bandwdith management platform is the inabilty to distinguish between radios that supported jsut one subscriber versus a building full of multiple subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio enabled bandwidth management. If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we could have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name brand appliances that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked the bandwidth management features that were essential (such as CISCO). PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Maybe thats a question we should be asking you. What is your friend using for MPLS? I beleive Matt is using all Cisco. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
On a side note, we have had much higher results per sector using Trango for VOIP (before any VOIP enhancement.). Unfortuneately we don't have concrete real world data to report, but its pretty high. We are doing more detailed tests probably in the next week or so. (as soon as we get our VOIP server built) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform using 50-50 up/down data ratio. Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using 25-75 up/down ratio. Patrick Jon Langeler wrote: Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-) Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and Syncing feature of Canopy. I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many cases. However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new customer is jsut a CPE. PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy) PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango) PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango) And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay $200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas. One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their capacity. PTP deployments prevent that. There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for the end game. But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if leasing. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5 Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on the same channel. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Theyre Cisco too Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Maybe thats a question we should be asking you. What is your friend using for MPLS? I beleive Matt is using all Cisco. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad -Original Message- From: Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Cisco switches or routers ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
3750 ME and 6500 series switchs along with 7300 series routers. We use 2800 series routers for the edges of our network where MPLS is not required. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Cisco switches or routers ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. 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. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. 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 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what
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/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU adjustment feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size is something that is critical in many instances. I think you will see more use of larger packets (requiring higher MTU settings) to add layers for security, QoS, packet aggregation, etc. I would consider this to be a entry level feature for any carrier grade wireless platform. Having variable MTU sizes as an option costs you nothing but a few minutes of your programmer's time. Not having it could cost you customers. Regarding WISPs and VOIP. Offering VOIP myself is not a big deal for me yet. It will be soon enough whether I am offering it or not. My customers are starting to demand access to VOIP. They will not give a rat's behind about excuses from me that my network was not optimized for VOIP. I either do it right and set myself apart from other network operators who do not care about QoS for VOIP or I ignore the wishes of my customers. I think I would like to build my network to be VOIP ready. Just my 2 cents. Scriv Patrick Leary wrote: So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. 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. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. 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 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Sure, it's not like we can't put more than one Canopy backhaul on the same channel. -Matt Brad Larson wrote: So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across. This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet link via a 100Mbps fiber. Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load up any single roof with too many radios. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I have seen testing on 4.0 BreezeAccess VL with 64 k packets where the new 4.0 outperformed version 3.1.25 by a very wide margin. Downstream throughput of 40.29 meg's per second with 59,952 frames per second passed! Data from 3.1.25 was 2.46 meg's and 3,662 frames per second. Most 5 GHz solutions I have seen tested are well below 3662 frames per second with 64k packets. Testing of 4.0 with and without internet has been very impressive. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution. Actual TCP throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across. This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet link via a 100Mbps fiber. Dan Metcalf Wireless Broadband Systems www.wbisp.com 781-566-2053 ext 6201 1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure. We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load up any single roof with too many radios. -Matt Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
As you guys know I'm no routing expert. Take this with a grain of salt I've got two thoughts on all of this. First is, any technology we deploy on a software side should ride the existing network. I'm talking big picture not niche markets. A vpn should work as well on wifi as it does on dsl, cable, t-1, ds3 or whatever. If they can't make it do that we should use a different solution. I'm lumping vlans, vpn etc. into that statement. I'm not saying that there aren't better ways to do things, but I'm tired of trying to tweak MY network so that some lazy software guy can build his perfect solution and sell it to an unsuspecting customer. He should make his NEW stuff work with my existing stuff! Even if that means he has to ham string it a bit. If he wants to sell a version with more capabilities and my customer wants to pay me for more access that's fine. Next, on a wireless network big packets can be a very dangerous thing. They are fine if you have no multipath or interference. Certainly we can make the network run faster by sending bigger packets. But the bigger the packet the more likely it will be to be damaged and need to be resent. I've seen people have to REDUCE the size of the packets they send out in order to get their networks stabilized. Careful what you ask for :-). Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this. Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort for carriers. 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. If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that with whatever your current technology permits? Good discussion by the way. 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 6:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K I figured my statement would generate comments about others running MPLS. We use Cisco BTW. -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an extra 24 bytes. I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy, Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
On the Advantage line that may be true. The numbers I am using were given to me these past two weeks from current Canopy users with large networks. You have to remember, with most systems small packets drive down the usable capacity significantly. You are right that I need to do another batch of side to side testing, especially with 4.0. Patrick -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
What I'm saying is data rates are only one part of doing voip. I know what Canopy can do...You said I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls. Data rates have very little to do with a scaling voip system with and without internet. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Brad Larson wrote: John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad -Original Message- From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform using 50-50 up/down data ratio. Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using 25-75 up/down ratio. Patrick Jon Langeler wrote: Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls... Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Patrick Leary wrote: As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5 Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on the same channel. -Matt On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote: It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-) Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a single tower? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8 calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch. How do you define good VoIP performance Matt? 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, since I do not know I am checking for you. Hope to have an answer before I head off to a meeting in 30 minutes. By the way, some other features include forward error correction, built-in spectrum analyzer with automatic clear channel selection and of course ATPC. The antenna options are integrated 21dBi panels or units with external antenna connectors for use with a 23dBi or 28dBi panel. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Whats ldp ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Label Distribution Protocol (RFC 3036) -Matt Gino A. Villarini wrote: Whats ldp ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, I'd appreciate all the info you can send me. One of my clients is considering B28s. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. http://www.ask-wi.com/2002locations.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Oops, my apologies... this email should have gone direct and not to the list. I'lll tri too bee morf careflull... Jack Unger wrote: Patrick, I'd appreciate all the info you can send me. One of my clients is considering B28s. Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. http://www.ask-wi.com/2002locations.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Hi Patrick, For clarification purposes -- 70 Mbps is achievable only in Turbo mode (40 Mhz channel sizes) correct? Also -- will it support a slim 5 or 10 Mhz channel mode? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:13 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Patrick, Is this 1512 limit for all the B14, B28, and B100 models? Is this limit the same for the VL models? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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(43). -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line) for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play, 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a Trango sector. Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to partners, if offering wholesale transport services. For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to allow larger packets? I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Our setup requires the following: 1500 bytes for payload 4 bytes for VLANs 4 bytes for LDP 4 bytes for EoMPLS header 18 bytes for Ethernet header That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512. 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: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking for an MTU of 1532. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001). The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp terrain. We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install backhaul for a very moderate price. Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail. Patrick -- 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(192). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
