Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-04-05 Thread Dylan Oliver
John,

It's now April 5th. How are you faring with the Cisco mesh gear?

On 3/1/06, John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
 available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 
 6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.

 Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to 
 post info shortly thereafter.

Best,
--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-28 Thread John J. Thomas
The Cisco radios can do 4.9-5.8 GHz. I am assuming that 5.3-5.7 will be 
available in a update, since 4.9 is available now. Cisco apparently only has 
6-8 deployments so far, and they are releasing updates regularly.

Our install is tentatively scheduled for March 14th, so I should be able to 
post info shortly thereafter.

John


-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 04:14 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access.

Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and
5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls.  Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls,
just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers.
Sounds like an Interference battle to me.

I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote I took the road less
travelled, and it made all the difference, Robert Frost.

5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to
blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in
demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector 
super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that
wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to 
Cisco's definition :-)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We
will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks.
This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the
whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh
box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4
GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share
numbers

John Thomas


-Original Message-
From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm
thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

Thanks,
Steve


--
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/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term 
to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is 
flawed.
I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end 
points to blanket an area.


However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used 
for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction 
to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of 
this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to 
be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path 
conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has 
been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is 
really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to 
wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is 
working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So 
Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features. 
But I don't feel what it adds is mesh.  Mesh is not a protocol, its a 
topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy 
MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER 
routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often 
misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered 
network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path 
to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell 
router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with 
Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.


I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by 
MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous 
Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new 
protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that 
need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the 
network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of 
my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty 
to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.


So in summary, Progress is not a Solution.  Progress is a science 
project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an 
award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just 
progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.


My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to 
determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to 
compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network, 
(or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards 
available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in 
real time, at packet speed.


MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has 
promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators, 
however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a 
solution yet.


Just my 2 cents.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.

What is so terrible about that?

Lonnie

On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Brad,

 I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
Cell/Sector models more effectively.
As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for 
that

task.
I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
that, but there is no reason for me to.
Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-27 Thread Tom DeReggi

It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for access.


Thats the first mistake of the gear. It should take advantage of 5.3Ghz and 
5.4Ghz, for creating its backhauls.  Using 5.8Ghz for short range backhauls, 
just means that they plan to go head to head against Super Cell providers. 
Sounds like an Interference battle to me.


I wonder why so many people never listen to the quote I took the road less 
travelled, and it made all the difference, Robert Frost.


5.8Ghz is best for Sector deployments that really need the higher power to 
blast through obstructions or long haul. So why pick the spectrum most in 
demand by everyone else? Unless of course the idea was to deploy sector 
super cell designs as the core to feed the MESH relay points. However, that 
wouldn't really be typical mesh topology, (although it may according to 
Cisco's definition :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John J. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We 
will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. 
This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the 
whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh 
box but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 
GHz for access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share 
numbers


John Thomas



-Original Message-
From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a 
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm 
thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.


Thanks,
Steve



--
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-27 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
I am in agreement.  Mesh is being abused by some people.  Mesh is a
routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing
mechanisms.  You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ
RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing.  That is all we are
doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option.

I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let
the MESH guys have their buzzwords.

Lonnie

On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term
 to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is
 flawed.
 I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end
 points to blanket an area.

 However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used
 for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction
 to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of
 this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to
 be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path
 conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has
 been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is
 really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to
 wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is
 working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So
 Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features.
 But I don't feel what it adds is mesh.  Mesh is not a protocol, its a
 topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy
 MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER
 routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often
 misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered
 network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path
 to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell
 router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with
 Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.

 I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by
 MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous
 Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new
 protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that
 need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the
 network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of
 my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty
 to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.

 So in summary, Progress is not a Solution.  Progress is a science
 project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an
 award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just
 progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.

 My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to
 determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to
 compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network,
 (or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards
 available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in
 real time, at packet speed.

 MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has
 promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators,
 however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a
 solution yet.

 Just my 2 cents.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


 Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
 routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

 You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
 connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
 is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

 We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
 does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
 or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
 your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
 hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
 your alternate path.

 What is so terrible about that?

 Lonnie

 On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Brad,
 
   I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
  Our

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-27 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:


I am in agreement.  Mesh is being abused by some people.  Mesh is a
routing mechanism in the same way that RIP and OSPF are routing
mechanisms.

No. OLSR is a routing protoco like RIP/OLSR. Meshis a network design 
like Bus, Star and Ring.
Mesh is overloaping Stars produced from one or more PtPa nd PtMP links. 
Look at Matt Liotta's

PDF, its explained very well.


 You don't build a RIP or an OSPF, but rather you employ
RIP or OSPF to organize and automate your routing.  That is all we are
doing with OLSR, just adding another routing option.

I think we'll start describing the new routing as WEB Routing, and let
the MESH guys have their buzzwords.
 


We dont need our own buzz words to muddy thing any more.

Jeromie


Lonnie

On 2/27/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 


Lonnie,

What I might not have made clear in previous posts, MESH is to broad a term
to discuss. The way most people would deploy MESH networks today, I feel is
flawed.
I'm referring to wireless with large number of hops between end to end
points to blanket an area.

However, I agree and its worth recognizing that some concepts that are used
for MESH are very worthly of recognition, and a step in the right direction
to improve and smarten routing for wireless network. A perfect example of
this is the open source core to Star-OS's MESH technology. The attempt is to
be able to make smarter decisions, not jsut on Up/Down or shortest path
conditions, but packet loss or latency of the link for example.  OSPF, has
been a standard for years for automatic internal network routing, but it is
really inadequate for Wireless. It can't consider factors that are common to
wireless. For example a marginal link apposed to a down link.  MESH is
working hard to improve intelligent routing based on QOS of links.  So
Star-OS is nothing but a stronger product because it add the MESH features.
But I don't feel what it adds is mesh.  Mesh is not a protocol, its a
topology. MEsh can;t be added to a radio, a designer uses radios to deploy
MESHes.  What Star-OS is really adding to its product line is SMARTER
routing that considers wireless conditions. These techniques, often
misinterpretted as MESH, can be very useful put to work for an engineered
network as well. I'd love to have a protocol that could determine which path
to take based on packet loss. But I'd deploy that on my master Super cell
router between backhauls, not deploy my network like a huge city mesh with
Radios every 600 feet to blanket an area using the technology.

I think people are confusing MESH, a topology, with protocols utilized by
MESH.  The protocols used in MESH are worthly. My larger point in previous
Emails is that the intelligence of these advance and ambitious new
protocols, still isn't good enough. It doesn't consider all the factors that
need to be considered to make the most intelligent decissions to replace the
network designer, who otherwise would make those decissions. Off the top of
my head I can't recall all the reason, but two might have been, the inabilty
to track several hops deep, or consider the dollar cost of the decission.

So in summary, Progress is not a Solution.  Progress is a science
project, and sometimes gets us closer to the goal, and often deserves an
award for its innovative ideas, but none the less, progress still is just
progress.  When the end goal is reached, it becomes a solution.

My fear is that there are millions of combinations of things to consider to
determine the best path and how it will effect others.  The inteligence to
compile the data to all the factors would be almost like a Neuro network,
(or what every that name is), and the processing power of rotuer CPE boards
available today, wouldn't have enough processing power to consider it all in
real time, at packet speed.

MESH protocols (not topology, unless you use Cisco's definition :-) has
promise, and I see it on the forefront for further innovation by innovators,
however, it has had promise for the last five years, and is no where near a
solution yet.

Just my 2 cents.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never

RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-26 Thread Brad Larson
BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes
per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times
that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference
shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad



-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a much better choice

John


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.
jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
 PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
 dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
 of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
 utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
 destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
 a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
 within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
 and relatively small panel antennas.
 
 Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
 spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
 enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
 reasons it was allocated for.
 
 One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
 to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
 not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
 high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
 Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
 corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
 better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
 wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
 you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
 RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
 additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
 increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
 is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
 super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
 because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
 give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
 is using.  The mesh provider has options.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
 Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
 mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
 backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
 backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
 times greater.

 jack


 ISPlists wrote:

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
 have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
 town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
 great.
  Thanks,
 Steve


 -- 
 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
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-26 Thread Matt Liotta
Here in Atlanta, Metrocom reported that it took 4 times the average 
number of nodes to provide coverage. Technology has changed a good deal 
since then, but then again they were also using 900Mhz, which has a lot 
more success with our pine trees than 2.4Ghz.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:


BTW, this is what gets lots of people in trouble. Quoting 16-18 mesh nodes
per square mile may be a correct number in AZ or TX. You may need 3 times
that in my neck of the woods here in NE USA. Even more where interference
shrinks cell sizes. Be cautious John. Brad



-Original Message-
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now.
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would
be a much better choice

John


 


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.

  jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

   

Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
and relatively small panel antennas.


Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
reasons it was allocated for.


One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
is using.  The mesh provider has options.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


 

Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

   

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
great.

Thanks,
Steve

 


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free

RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-25 Thread Brad Larson
Or how about automatic sector failover that puts no traffic on the network
when things are working correctly. Brad





-Original Message-
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.

What is so terrible about that?

Lonnie

On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brad,

  I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
 Cell/Sector models more effectively.
 As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for
that
 task.
 I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
 that, but there is no reason for me to.
 Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
 Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

 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, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


  Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but
  it
  has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers
or
  1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
  several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all
 Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come
  close
  to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
  areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
  coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
  laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900
  mesh
  nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.
 
  I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile
centers
  and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm
working
  on
  a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.
 
  What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right
  terrain
  and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects
  will
  get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a
  certain
  job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed
as
  broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
  Matt,
 
  I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
  than are there.
  I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments.
I'm
  simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience

  --
  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/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 
 
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.



 
This mail passed through mail.alvarion.com
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-25 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
OLSR does put its handshaking on the sectors, but you are right, no
data traffic goes down that alternate until the primary fails.  The
changeover is typically within 15 to 30 seconds.

The other cool thing is being able to add ADSL backups into the
system, at various spots (could be T1, cable, etc), and by assigning
weights to them, you can have automatic gateway selection if your
primary goes down.

We have had these backups and alternate paths for years, but we
managed them manually.  It worked but what a pain it was, and things
were frantic while you tried to figure out what went down and then get
in and change routing by hand.  Once things restored we had to go back
in and roll the changes back.

It was cool to be able to do those things, but it is even cooler to
have those same capabilities but not to have to any of the manual
changing.  In this way I do say that smart engineers (OLSR developers)
have coded the thing to be better than a human network techie (me).  I
know networking better than a lot of you guys and I still make
mistakes.  OLSR does not seem to be fooled and I have no hesitation in
saying it is better than I am at routing decisions.

Is it perfect?  Is it the answer for all routing?  NO to both, but it
sure beats the way a lot of people are doing it.

Lonnie

On 2/25/06, Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Or how about automatic sector failover that puts no traffic on the network
 when things are working correctly. Brad





 -Original Message-
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:02 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


 Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
 routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

 You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
 connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
 is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

 We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
 does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
 or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
 your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
 hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
 your alternate path.

 What is so terrible about that?

 Lonnie

 On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Brad,
 
   I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that
 Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
  Cell/Sector models more effectively.
  As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for
 that
  task.
  I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
  that, but there is no reason for me to.
  Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
  Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.
 
  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, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
   Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but
   it
   has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers
 or
   1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
   several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all
  Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come
   close
   to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
   areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
   coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
   laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900
   mesh
   nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.
  
   I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile
 centers
   and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm
 working
   on
   a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.
  
   What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right
   terrain
   and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects
   will
   get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a
   certain
   job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed
 as
   broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad
  
  
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
  
  
   Matt,
  
   I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
   than are there.
   I am in no way attacking the validity of your

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-25 Thread John J. Thomas
We are still waiting to deply Cisco mesh, so I can't vouch for it *yet*. We 
will be installing for the City of Gilroy Ca. probably in the next 4 weeks. 
This is currently only a partial deployment, but they plan on lighting the 
whole city. I can tell you that the equipment is expensive -$3500 per mesh box 
but has fantastic specs. It uses a 5.7-8 GHz radio for backhaul and 2.4 GHz for 
access. As soon as I get the testing done, I promise to share numbers

John Thomas


-Original Message-
From: ISPlists [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 02:32 PM
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com, ''WISPA General List''
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a small 
town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm thinking 
of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

Thanks,
Steve


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-25 Thread John J. Thomas
Yes, unfortunately, the Cisco mesh is only using 5.8 for backhaul right now. 
Since they recommend 16-18 mesh boxes per square mile, 5.25 GHz and up would be 
a much better choice

John


-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 08:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.
jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
 PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
 dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
 of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
 utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
 destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
 a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
 within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
 and relatively small panel antennas.
 
 Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
 spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
 enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
 reasons it was allocated for.
 
 One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
 spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
 to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
 5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
 not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
 high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
 Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
 corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
 better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
 wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
 you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
 RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
 additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
 increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
 is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
 super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
 because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
 give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
 is using.  The mesh provider has options.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
 Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
 mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
 2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
 backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
 backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
 times greater.

 jack


 ISPlists wrote:

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
 have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
 town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
 great.
  Thanks,
 Steve


 -- 
 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
 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/ 
 
 

-- 
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
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
 capable, but because the engineer has not yet been proven 
capable to program the computer to be more capable.



Discuss muni issues in a non-technical thread.


Wether you recognize it or not, technology has no value if not applied to a 
business case to solve. Technology's applications are well relivent to 
technolgy discussions. I'd argue that one of the big mistakes of technical 
people is they get trapped inside the technology, and design without 
adequately understanding the applications and ultimate goal of using the 
technology.
For example, the task is not to reduce packet loss, its to be able to serve 
consumers more reliably.  There is a big difference between the two.  One 
approach is narrow and one is broad. What often happens, is technical people 
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are 
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for 
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the 
technology.  Just my 2 cents.


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, February 24, 2006 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment



Tom DeReggi wrote:

Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its all 
in one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, easy to 
backup, etc.

What does mesh offer for better complete central management?

You seem to be suggesting that I simply haven't looked for information to 
back up your argument. Not sure why that makes sense to you. Anyway, I am 
not making arguments based upon information I read somewhere. My company 
operates a very large network that makes use of mesh, star, and ring 
network architectures. Some of it is fiber-based, while other parts are 
wireless. We are a highly technical, but practical company. In other 
words, we do a vast amount of research before doing field trials. After we 
are satisfied that the technical works in the field the way we expect and 
ultimately want, only then do we deploy it. I can make intelligent 
statements in regard to mesh because of this. It doesn't appear you have 
done nearly the research we have and it doesn't appear you have any 
significant mesh deployments. I suggest you field trial the technology in 
a meaningful way before dismissing it.


In regard to your actual question, I would request that you be more 
specific. We manage all of our network devices centrally using SNMP 
regardless if they are mesh or not.



 I think you may be mixing too many arguments.

I may be mixing up typical deployment models using MESH with MESH 
Technology.

It also depends on your definition of MESH.


Cisco defines a mesh network as a communications network having two or 
more paths to any node. I would agree with that definition. How would you 
define mesh?


I admit, I made a generalization of a typical way MESH would be deployed, 
in my arguements.
Deployed at street level, so many short hops were required to get 
coverage and get around NLOS obstacles, in a dense city environment.


That may be true if the mesh didn't have any dedicated backhauls. We using 
P2MP systems to backhaul our mesh, which allows us to limit the number of 
hops of any one particular path.


A network that made its own intelligent routing decissions, that may not 
always be the most intelligent compared to the human mind's decissions.


Meshs don't have to make their own routing decisions. You can statically 
route a mesh if you want to. I don't think I will agree that a human is 
better suited to the job though.


But is that really MESH? Technically you could call any multi-path routed 
network, MESH. I call my network a routed network using triangulation.
But I would not call it MESH. But it very well could be considered 
similar to MESH.


Our industry peers use the term mesh in this context, so it appears quite 
appropriate.


What criteria does your network OS sue to deterine routing changes? 
Measure highest packet loss? measure most amount of available bandwdith? 
Measure least amount of average bandwidth? Measure shortest path? Lowest 
latency? Lowest cost ($) transit or transport provider path? And how many 
can they consider togeather to make the best overall decission?
I'd be interested in hearing more about what you are doing with MPLS in 
your design.


MPLS traffic engineering allows you to use any number of combinations of 
criteria. In fact, Cisco sells whole books on this very subject.


Also understand this is a Wireless list, not a fiber list. The design 
flaws of MESH over fiber (fast packet-loss less links) is a completely 
different animal with different challenges than MESH in Wireless.


I disagree. While there are certainly important differences between fiber 
and wireless, network architecture wish the communication medium is 
generally less important.


I

RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Brian Webster
Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead
engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio
still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement
from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with
their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they
will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too
bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Brad Larson
Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but it
has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come close
to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 mesh
nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.

I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working on
a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned. 

What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right terrain
and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects will
get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a certain
job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad 




-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Matt,

I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them 
than are there.
I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm 
simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Linda Pond
Tom and Brian:

So very eloquantly said!  Do Motorola - and companies like them -  a favour: 
please forward these comments to them.  They need to hear this, and will be 
a better company if they hear and heed it.

Linda

Linda Pond
President
Customer Connects
Bridging Technology Relationships
www.customerconnects.com
613-253-0240 (w)
613-291-2884 (c)
BLOG:  http://lindaleepond.blogspot.com/

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the lead
engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the radio
still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up statement
from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab with
their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, they
will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is too
bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

-- 
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Your comments couldn't be more appropriate.  I'm hearing 3rd hand that Moto 
just announced on webinar's today that their next firmware release (8.0) 
will no longer support compatibility with the original Canopy protocol, so 
original deployed equipment must be replaced.  Some unhappy comments 
appearing on the [Motorola] list.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 1:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment



Quoting Tom:

What often happens, is technical people
make these beautiful products from a technical point of view, but they are
worthless because they don't solve the problems that need to be solved for
its applications, which were the reasons for originally developing the
technology.

Man have you hot the nail on the head!  Motorola is a company that gets
caught in this all the time. I can't tell you how many times over the 
years
I went to product introduction seminars as a 2 way radio dealer and the 
lead

engineer would be touting all the cool wiz bang features of the new radio.
It would always happen where a dealer would stand up and ask does the 
radio

still do XYZ? They would get a glassy eyed stare and say no, that is old
technology and we did not include it in this model The follow up 
statement

from the dealer would be  do you realize that 80% of our customer base
still uses this technology, what do we tell them? and the engineer would
say  They will need to upgrade to the new technology. My take on this 
was
that they spent so much time patting themselves on the back in the lab 
with

their new toys that they never researched what the customer wanted and
needed to solve their communication problem. Typical Motorola attitude, 
they

will tell the customer what they need or what they will be
getting...They still have not learned this lesson...which is 
too

bad because they do have the ability to make great products and great
radios.


Brian

--
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No I am not. I am asking you to tell me what you know, so I don't have 
to waste time replicating your research.
Thats the purpose of this list, to exchange knowledge and data. Not 
just making claims, but disclosing why.


I recall in an earlier email you making claims without disclosing why. 
Are we going to debate the debate or mesh?



I never suggest that. And Neither am I.
But no, I do not own a city wide MESH network. I decided against MESH, 
which is why my opinion is biased against MESH.
I can count the total ISPs on one hand that have completed that task 
as of today.
Maybe two Muni's that had been legally allowed to proceed doing a 
large public network.

So my experience level does not lessen my point of view.

Why does the mesh have to be city wide? We haven't nor will we do a city 
wide mesh. We believe mesh is only appropriate in certain pockets of 
geography that allow the economics of mesh to exceed that of P2MP.


Of course you do. Just like most WISPs do. I can't count how many 
single unit Mesh system we had sent to evaluate. Its likely you did 
the same.


We don't do single unit mesh evaluations. What's the point? You can't 
really test a mesh with just a single unit.


As a router operating system manufacturer with protocol level coding 
experience, (but never went to market), we also have a great deal of 
talent on staff, to investigate the trade offs of various 
technologies.  But you have to understand, that sooner or later a WISP 
needs to put the science projects aside, and start making sales, and 
they don't always have time to keep up to date on every latest and 
greatest daily enhancements to a technology, when they've decided on a 
different path to follow. I really don't have time to evaluate every 
manufacturers' Mesh product on a weekly basis to prove right or wrong 
their latest theories in their field.


I am not referring to some science project. We have active mesh 
deployments existing in the field now. Additionally, we are starting 
work next week on two more. One is a Tropos-based mesh, while the other 
is going to be built using some pre-release gear. The later is a mixed 
use development spanning hundreds of acres. That is the kind of scale we 
use to test mesh technology.



It doesn't appear you have done nearly the research we have
 and it doesn't appear you have any significant mesh deployments.


This is NOT a competition to prove who is the smarter technician and 
network designer. I do not claim to be Grand Master MESH. But I am 
more than qualified to carry on intelligent debate on the pros and 
cons of various routing and wireless technologies.


I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin. You 
have made statements against mesh, but haven't made a single technical 
argument that was backed up by facts, research, or field experience.


I don't disagree with that definition. And technically in the 
dictionary, if it had to be defined, that could be it.  But I feel 
MESH is more of a mindset than a definition.  In practicality and real 
world, that MESH definition is two broad to cover all the many ways of 
implementing MESH. That definition does not define why someone would 
benefit from usingthe technology. I look at MESH as a concept of how 
to better gain coverage to a large number of people and/or 
geographical area, when Line-of-sight to a central or common sources 
are frequently obstructed, which typically requires more radios, 
installed closer togeather, and a method to manage their 
relationships, apposed to defining the way nodes communicate.


You are overloading the term mesh then. You can't take an accepted 
industry term and twist it to mean something else. Mesh is a network 
architecture that is more heavily used in wireline networks than 
wireless networks yet you want to suggest mesh has something to do with 
coverage. Each node in a mesh or each basestation in a P2MP system has 
an associated coverage area. Given a mesh node operating in the same 
spectrum and power output as a P2MP system you would expect a similar 
coverage because the coverage provided by the radios in question is a 
function of spectrum and power not network architecture.


Some people believed in John Henry, some believed in the Steam 
engine.  I agree that the ultimately a computer (or technology) has 
more potential to be better equipped to make those decissions. 
However, today is not that day yet, and I have more confidence in the 
engineer (human).  Not because the computer isn't capable, but because 
the engineer has not yet been proven capable to program the computer 
to be more capable.


Again I disagree. There are a number of large networks where a piece of 
software is used to configure network devices instead of humans 
configuring the devices directly. The same decisions are made by humans 
in either case, but in the former case the software can detect 
configuration issues before they are applied. Humans 

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Brad,

I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with 
Cell/Sector models more effectively.
As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that 
task.
I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove 
that, but there is no reason for me to.

Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

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, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but 
it

has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come 
close

to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900 
mesh

nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.

I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working 
on

a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.

What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right 
terrain
and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects 
will
get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a 
certain

job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad




-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Matt,

I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
than are there.
I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm
simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.

--
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,


I'm not competing; just waiting for the intelligent debate to begin.


I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being out thought, and I don't 
mind being beat.
I sometimes even purposely hypothetically support the minority side, to 
spark intelligent debate on the other side.
But I do not like being insulted. Its comments like yours above that I find 
insulting.


I have no interest in debating further with you on this topic at this time.
I got better things to do.

but haven't made a single technical argument that was backed up by facts, 
research, or field experience.


I'm not sure that you have either.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-24 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
Tom, what if you could take the Cell/Sector system and add some
routing that determined when a path had stopped and chose another one.

You have controlled this by your choice of units to make those cross
connections and really all that is happening is that the mesh routing
is constantly testing to see if it needs to try another route.

We used to do this manually and what a pain it was.  This new routing
does what I used to do, except it does not sleep, have bathroom breaks
or go out for lunch.  You can assign weights to connections and force
your chosen route to get used, at least until it goes down, which
hopefully never happens, but if and when it does you are covered with
your alternate path.

What is so terrible about that?

Lonnie

On 2/24/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brad,

  I agree. Our downtown Mesh versus Cell/Sector trials proved exactly that.
 Our tests showed that the cities like DC could be better served with
 Cell/Sector models more effectively.
 As a matter of fact, Alvarion product, appeared to be well equiped for that
 task.
 I think projects like Phili's will bring a rude awakening. I can't prove
 that, but there is no reason for me to.
 Thats the point of modelling. So you can pre-dict BEFORE you spend.
 Its the Muni's budget to pay for, to find the true answer, not mine.

 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, February 24, 2006 2:49 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


  Tom, IMHO mesh is great for lighting up downtown and city parks etc. but
  it
  has yet to prove itself in a large deployment with 1,000's of customers or
  1,000's of nodes deployed. I too have first hand experience backhauling
  several mesh projects and the mesh edge so far has not been easy at all.
  Here in Northeast USA 15 mesh nodes per square miles doesn't even come
  close
  to what's needed. I've also found that implementing mesh in major metro
  areas, where there are already 1,000's of wifi access points, shrinks
  coverage models and can turn a well intentioned response to an RFP
  laughable. I believe Philadelphia projects 70k users in 5 years on 3900
  mesh
  nodes backhauled by Canopy. We'll see.
 
  I'd love to see a comparison of our BreezeAccess VL with one mile centers
  and our high powered DS11 on the edge in Anytown USA vs mesh. I'm working
  on
  a few of my guys to do such a test so stay tuned.
 
  What it comes down to is the fact that Matt may have just the right
  terrain
  and noise floor without the traffic that some of these larger projects
  will
  get hammered with so it works for his company. Mesh is a tool for a
  certain
  job just like other gear. But I don't believe mesh should be construed as
  broadband for the masses in any major metro area. Brad
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:28 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
 
  Matt,
 
  I think you are misinterpretting my comments. Don't read more in to them
  than are there.
  I am in no way attacking the validity of your experience or comments. I'm
  simply asking for more detail, so that I can learn from your experience.
 
  --
  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/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181



First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage 
today. Just like hotspots were a couple of years ago. Mesh and muni 
are often rolled out in the same sentence. Show me ONE that's working 
correctly past the 6 to 12 month stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same 
functionality. 

Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, 
Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed 
micro cell wifi deployments that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH 
better scalability and, I believe, much better stability.

That help?
Marlon(509) 
982-2181 
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 
(Vonage) 
Consulting services42846865 
(icq) 
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ISPlists 
  To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com 
  ; 'WISPA General 
  List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 
  PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
  
  Does anyone have a good recommendation on some 
  Mesh equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet 
  access to the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any 
  ideas would be great.
  
  Thanks,
  Steve
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots were a
 couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
 sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
 stage..

 Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

 Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick
 your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments
 that are down at street level.

 Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I
 believe, much better stability.

 That help?
 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181   Equipment
 sales
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)And I run
 my own wisp!
 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




 - Original Message -
 From: ISPlists
 To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
 small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm
 thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

 Thanks,
 Steve

 


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 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/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread chris cooper
The primary challenge from my experience is LOS issues on the link side.
You can solve this by deploying more nodes or more injection points
according to design and budget. The new 900 Mhz cards look interesting
to link those few out of the way nodes.

chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
 First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots
were a
 couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
 sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
 stage..

 Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

 Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion,
pick
 your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi
deployments
 that are down at street level.

 Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and,
I
 believe, much better stability.

 That help?
 Marlon
 (509) 982-2181   Equipment
 sales
 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
 42846865 (icq)And I run
 my own wisp!
 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
 www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




 - Original Message -
 From: ISPlists
 To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
 Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have
a
 small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town
and I'm
 thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

 Thanks,
 Steve

 


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 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/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.15.0 - Release Date: 2/1/2006


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Mario Pommier




Lonnie,
 when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous
post?

M

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

  I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots were a
couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick
your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments
that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I
believe, much better stability.

That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run
my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




- Original Message -
From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm
thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

Thanks,
Steve




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
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/




  
  

--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
  



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
I am not disputing that at all.  What I was saying that mesh is a
routing mechanism and as such is used on the backhaul and microcell to
tie them together.  As such it is far superior to a backhaul and
microcell approach without mesh routing.  That is all I was trying to
say.

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, chris cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The primary challenge from my experience is LOS issues on the link side.
 You can solve this by deploying more nodes or more injection points
 according to design and budget. The new 900 Mhz cards look interesting
 to link those few out of the way nodes.

 chris

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
 Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:52 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

 I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
 would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
 the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
 fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

 Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
 problem you see?

 Lonnie

 On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
  First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots
 were a
  couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
  sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
  stage..
 
  Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.
 
  Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion,
 pick
  your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi
 deployments
  that are down at street level.
 
  Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and,
 I
  believe, much better stability.
 
  That help?
  Marlon
  (509) 982-2181   Equipment
  sales
  (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
  42846865 (icq)And I run
  my own wisp!
  64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
  www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
 
 
 
 
  - Original Message -
  From: ISPlists
  To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment
 
  Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have
 a
  small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town
 and I'm
  thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
 
  Thanks,
  Steve
 
  
 
 
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  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/
 
 
 


 --
 Lonnie Nunweiler
 Valemount Networks Corporation
 http://www.star-os.com/
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 --
 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
 Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
 Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 267.15.0 - Release Date: 2/1/2006


 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. 
The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get
tweaks and add-ons.

We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005.  We felt
it was ready for prime time.

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,
 when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post?

 M


 Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would
 not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same
 functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that
 is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing
 issues and requires routed networks. Is that the
problem you
 see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were
 a
couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the
 same
sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12
 month
stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same
 functionality.

Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy,
 Alvarion, pick
your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi
 deployments
that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater
 flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I
believe, much better
 stability.

That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910
 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run
my own
 wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net
 meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




-
 Original Message -
From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ;
 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject:
 [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh
 equipment. I have a
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the
 entire town and I'm
thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be
 great.

Thanks,
Steve




--
WISPA
 Wireless List:
 wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
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/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Tom DeReggi
No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore adding 
significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify where the QOS 
lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without killing every other 
in town at the same time.



routing...


Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not needed 
in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. Fewer 
compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized management 
and configuration, when scaling large projects.  When end users have routers 
at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as the path is rarely 
peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the path to backbone.  Not 
that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its importance to be implemented at 
the right strategic places. Its jsut not needed every hop along the path. 
There are automated routing tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its 
awefully risky allowing route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, 
or the consumer radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual 
circuits and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of 
deployment.


The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.

Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super cell 
is unable to reach the clientel.  But I'd argue many samll repeater cells is 
a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be engineered into 
every site.   When paths from point A to point B change automatically, its 
difficult to loose control of performance levels an individual may have at 
one point in time over another. QOS is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. 
I look at MESH as a Best effort service, and it should be deployed only when 
thatlevel of service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating 
shortest number of hops, with most direct solid links.  Just my opinion. 
We'll see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many 
future case studies to come.  Its the Mesh companies that are the ones 
pushing it,and in their eye.  The reason has to do with assets not 
technology.  Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the street 
poles.  Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a 
project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni controls the 
assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. Its building 
management companies and owners that control the expansion of Broadband in 
the Super Cell.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick 
progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water 
towers, if they are strategically located.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots were a
couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick
your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments
that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I
believe, much better stability.

That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run
my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




- Original Message -
From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and 
I'm

thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

Thanks,
Steve




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Matt Liotta

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots 
were a couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the 
same sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 
month stage..
 


Come down and visit some of our mesh networks if you'd like. Mesh may be 
a over-hyped buzzword not unlike WiMAX, but that doesn't mean the 
technology is not without merit.


Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality. 
 


No you can't. P2P and P2MP systems are static layer 2 and layer 3 
architectures where as a mesh system can be dynamic at both layer 2 and 
layer 3.


Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, 
I believe, much better stability. 


Functionally, both systems deliver data, but flexibility is higher with 
mesh, scalability could be better or worse depending on the network, and 
stability is almost never a function of architecture.


With all the above being stated, mesh is easy to achieve and hard to get 
right. Don't even bother with WDS or other poor man's mesh. If you can't 
afford to do mesh right, don't; stick with P2MP. Folks can argue the 
multiple radio issue as much as they want in regard to mesh and Tropos 
with its single radio nodes continue to run circles around everyone 
else. We have deployed Tropos and while we don't like certain aspects 
about them, I can tell you without a doubt that they are the most well 
engineered mesh nodes I have ever encountered.


With that being said, we are now deploying multiple radio mesh nodes 
because the requirements of our project demand them. However, the amount 
of engineering that goes into making a multiple radio mesh work rivals 
and some would say exceeds that of a cellular network.


In short, mesh sounds good in theory, mesh is easy to create 
technically, but in practice, in the field, mesh is hard to get right 
unless you have a product like Tropos that does it all for you.


-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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Matt Liotta

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore 
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify 
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without 
killing every other in town at the same time.


Mesh doesn't have to add hops where they aren't needed or wanted. 
Further, there is no inherent added latency for a mesh network. 
Certainly hops and TDM add latency, but that is the case with all 
network architectures.


Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not 
needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. 
Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized 
management and configuration, when scaling large projects.  When end 
users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, 
as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow 
the path to backbone.  Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have 
its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its 
jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing 
tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing 
route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer 
radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits 
and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of 
deployment.


Unless we are talking best effort, all customers should have their own 
VLAN and therefore any network will have an upper limit on its size 
without routers. Clearly some combination of layer 2 and layer 3 is the 
right way to go for even a medium size network.



The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.


I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement.

Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super 
cell is unable to reach the clientel.  But I'd argue many samll 
repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path 
can be engineered into every site.   When paths from point A to point 
B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance 
levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS 
is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best 
effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of 
service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest 
number of hops, with most direct solid links.  Just my opinion. We'll 
see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many 
future case studies to come.  Its the Mesh companies that are the ones 
pushing it,and in their eye.  The reason has to do with assets not 
technology.  Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the 
street poles.  Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to 
intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni 
controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. 
Its building management companies and owners that control the 
expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell.


I think you may be mixing too many arguments. We are using a fully 
meshed MPLS network for our fiber backbone. Our choice of a mesh 
architecture for our fiber backbone has nothing to do with client 
reachability, politics, vendor's opinions, or anything else outside of 
practical requirements. Our network devices can and do make routing 
decisions on the fly that result in better throughput, lower latency, 
and better QoS than traditional star and ring architectures can achieve. 
Understand that every major ISP is now either running a fully meshed 
MPLS network or has plans to migrate to one.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee 
quick progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's 
control water towers, if they are strategically located.


I don't think Muni choices whatever they are should have anything to do 
with an technical discussion regarding the merits of mesh as a network 
architecture.


-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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Mario Pommier




good deal!
do you have info on the tech specs of the system in the website?
thanks.

Mario

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

  We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards. 
The beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get
tweaks and add-ons.

We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005.  We felt
it was ready for prime time.

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
Lonnie,
when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous post?

M


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you

  
  would
  
  
not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives

  
  the same
  
  
functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are

  
  fine because that
  
  
is what people have been building since forever.

  
  
Mesh handles routing
  
  
issues and requires routed networks. Is that the

  
  problem you
  
  
see?

  
  
Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
  
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were
a

  
  couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the
  
  
same

  
  sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12
  
  
month

  
  stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same
  
  
functionality.

  
  
Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy,
  
  
Alvarion, pick

  
  your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi
  
  
deployments

  
  that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater
  
  
flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I

  
  believe, much better
  
  
stability.

  
  
That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910
  
  
(Vonage) Consulting services

  
  42846865 (icq) And I run
my own
  
  
wisp!

  
  64.146.146.12 (net
  
  
meeting)

  
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




-
  
  
Original Message -

  
  From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ;
  
  
'WISPA General List'

  
  Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject:
  
  
[WISPA] Mesh Equipment

  
  
Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh
  
  
equipment. I have a

  
  small town that wants to provide Internet access to the
  
  
entire town and I'm

  
  thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be
  
  
great.

  
  
Thanks,
Steve




--
WISPA
  
  
Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org

  
  
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
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/

  
  



  
  --
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
  
  
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




  
  

--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
  



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Tom DeReggi wrote:

No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore 
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify 
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without 
killing every other in town at the same time.


QoS is easy with mesh, you jsut gotta pick your software well. Its very 
easy to identify where QoS is at. Self interferance is also

very easy to avoid (no 400mw cards on 10db omnis ok? thats a no no)





routing...



Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not 
needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. 
Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized 
management and configuration, when scaling large projects.  When end 
users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, 
as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow 
the path to backbone.  Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have 
its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its 
jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing 
tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing 
route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer 
radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits 
and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment.


RIP is just plain evil to use unless its for a end use LAN only. OSPF 
only works for mesh when your urnning 3+ radios/node. There is nothing
wrong with your client hardware helping with routes as long as you 
control the hardware. Central control is nice and works well. So does
micro managing when you do it in centralized way (central server, all 
nodes request updated info every X hours or its pushed when a change is

made)




The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.


Define better and what central/non centralized configuration setups you 
are comparing.





Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super 
cell is unable to reach the clientel.  But I'd argue many samll 
repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path 
can be engineered into every site.   When paths from point A to point 
B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance 
levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS 
is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best 
effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of 
service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest 
number of hops, with most direct solid links.  Just my opinion. We'll 
see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many 
future case studies to come.  Its the Mesh companies that are the ones 
pushing it,and in their eye.  The reason has to do with assets not 
technology.  Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the 
street poles.  Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to 
intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni 
controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. 
Its building management companies and owners that control the 
expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee 
quick progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's 
control water towers, if they are strategically located.


Mesh also works from non pole setups. Muni pole setups should use multi 
radio overlapping stars for the mesh, not single radio mesh. Mesh can
have QoS its not a open buffet. Anyone deploying in the ISM/UNII bands 
is a best effort service. 3650 and licensed is the way out of best 
effort land.





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots 
were a

couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick
your high end ptmp system.  Use

Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
No, but I posted a link to the manuals on the Support Forums.  We use
OLSR  and you can get the manuals, etc yourself.  http://www.olsr.org/

What specs do you need?  This auto routes and is not limited to 2
layer like OSPF.

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 good deal!
 do you have info on the tech specs of the system in the website?
 thanks.

 Mario


 Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
 We released the code yesterday as part of our v3 for the WAR boards.
The
 beta part is mostly for the Atheros driver which continues to get
tweaks and
 add-ons.

We have been testing and playing with mesh since Fall 2005. We
 felt
it was ready for prime time.

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Mario Pommier
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Lonnie,
when will your radios support mesh, as described in your previous
 post?

M


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
I guess you'll have to learn more about
 Mesh because if you did you

 would

 not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives

 the same

 functionality. Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are

 fine because that

 is what people have been building since forever.

 Mesh handles routing

 issues and requires routed networks. Is that the

 problem you

 see?

 Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were
a

 couple of years ago. Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the

 same

 sentence. Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12

 month

 stage..

Having said that, you can still give them the same

 functionality.

 Use a dedicated backhaul system. Trango, Airaya, Canopy,

 Alvarion, pick

 your high end ptmp system. Use that to feed micro cell wifi

 deployments

 that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater

 flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I

 believe, much better

 stability.

 That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910

 (Vonage) Consulting services

 42846865 (icq) And I run
my own

 wisp!

 64.146.146.12 (net

 meeting)

 www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




-

 Original Message -

 From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ;

 'WISPA General List'

 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject:

 [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

 Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh

 equipment. I have a

 small town that wants to provide Internet access to the

 entire town and I'm

 thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would be

 great.

 Thanks,
Steve




--
WISPA
 Wireless List:
wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
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/





 --
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/

 --
WISPA Wireless List:
 wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives:
 http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Tom DeReggi

MAtt,


The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.


I don't believe an argument has been made to back up your above statement.


Trie I did not offer any backup data. But use your immagination. Its all in 
one place, easy to check, easy to document, easy to configure, easy to 
backup, etc.

What does mesh offer for better complete central management?

 I think you may be mixing too many arguments.

I may be mixing up typical deployment models using MESH with MESH 
Technology.

It also depends on your definition of MESH.
I admit, I made a generalization of a typical way MESH would be deployed, in 
my arguements.
Deployed at street level, so many short hops were required to get coverage 
and get around NLOS obstacles, in a dense city environment.
A network that made its own intelligent routing decissions, that may not 
always be the most intelligent compared to the human mind's decissions.



We are using a fully meshed MPLS network for our fiber backbone.


But is that really MESH? Technically you could call any multi-path routed 
network, MESH. I call my network a routed network using triangulation.
But I would not call it MESH. But it very well could be considered similar 
to MESH.


Our choice of a mesh architecture for our fiber backbone has nothing to do 
with client reachability, politics, vendor's opinions, or anything else 
outside of practical requirements. Our network devices can and do make 
routing decisions on the fly that result in better throughput, lower 
latency, and better QoS than traditional star and ring architectures can 
achieve.


What criteria does your network OS sue to deterine routing changes? Measure 
highest packet loss? measure most amount of available bandwdith? Measure 
least amount of average bandwidth? Measure shortest path? Lowest latency? 
Lowest cost ($) transit or transport provider path? And how many can they 
consider togeather to make the best overall decission?
I'd be interested in hearing more about what you are doing with MPLS in your 
design.


Also understand this is a Wireless list, not a fiber list. The design flaws 
of MESH over fiber (fast packet-loss less links) is a completely different 
animal with different challenges than MESH in Wireless.


I recognize that MESH is at a new stage of being more than just the 
implementation of RIP2. (Allthough early MESH was not much more than RIP).
But I do not believe that computers make better decissions than engineers in 
all cases. I'm not convinced that has been accomplished yet.

However, I'm open to being proven wrong.
One of the reasons I am hesitant to MESH is that static data (non-MESH) is 
very easy to be managed by a Human, but its very difficult to manage dynamic 
data. Human mind can't make decissions on criteria it does not know about, 
because the known are not known. MESH takes away power from the engineer.


Understand that every major ISP is now either running a fully meshed MPLS 
network or has plans to migrate to one.


Thats a very bold statement, that is not true. However, that does not mean I 
do not recognize the benefits of the advanced design of MPLS networks.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick 
progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control 
water towers, if they are strategically located.


I don't think Muni choices whatever they are should have anything to do 
with an technical discussion regarding the merits of mesh as a network 
architecture.


How do you figure? I sure hope the network design that was getting proposed, 
was something they would take the time to evaluate, in making their 
decissions.
Anyone would look at there assets to locate gear, and consider that into 
their design. Thats step 1 of any wireless network design.


Tom DeReggi



-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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-23 Thread Tom DeReggi

you jsut gotta pick your software well.


OK. What do you pick, and why?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment



Tom DeReggi wrote:

No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore 
adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify 
where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without 
killing every other in town at the same time.


QoS is easy with mesh, you jsut gotta pick your software well. Its very 
easy to identify where QoS is at. Self interferance is also

very easy to avoid (no 400mw cards on 10db omnis ok? thats a no no)





routing...



Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not 
needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. 
Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized 
management and configuration, when scaling large projects.  When end 
users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as 
the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the 
path to backbone.  Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its 
importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its jsut not 
needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing tasks like 
RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing route 
advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer radio to 
have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits and VPN, are 
also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment.


RIP is just plain evil to use unless its for a end use LAN only. OSPF only 
works for mesh when your urnning 3+ radios/node. There is nothing
wrong with your client hardware helping with routes as long as you 
control the hardware. Central control is nice and works well. So does
micro managing when you do it in centralized way (central server, all 
nodes request updated info every X hours or its pushed when a change is

made)




The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.


Define better and what central/non centralized configuration setups you 
are comparing.





Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super 
cell is unable to reach the clientel.  But I'd argue many samll repeater 
cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be 
engineered into every site.   When paths from point A to point B change 
automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance levels an 
individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS is near 
impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best effort service, 
and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of service isrequired. 
Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest number of hops, with 
most direct solid links.  Just my opinion. We'll see what the Muni Mesh 
network brings to the table after their many future case studies to come. 
Its the Mesh companies that are the ones pushing it,and in their eye. 
The reason has to do with assets not technology.  Muni's don;t own the 
roof tops and towers. They own the street poles.  Mesh works from the 
Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a project, without third parties 
getting in the way. The Muni controls the assets required for the 
Technology to pull off its job. Its building management companies and 
owners that control the expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell.


Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that 
already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick 
progress.  There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control 
water towers, if they are strategically located.


Mesh also works from non pole setups. Muni pole setups should use multi 
radio overlapping stars for the mesh, not single radio mesh. Mesh can
have QoS its not a open buffet. Anyone deploying in the ISM/UNII bands is 
a best effort service. 3650 and licensed is the way out of best effort 
land.





Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Lonnie Nunweiler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:


First off, don't.  Mesh is all the rage today.  Just like hotspots were

[WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread ISPlists



Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh 
equipment. I have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to 
the entire town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology. Any ideas would 
be great.

Thanks,
Steve
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread George

ISPlists wrote:
Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a 
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and 
I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
 
Thanks,

Steve




Lonnie just released a beta mesh upgrade for star-os v3 today.

Or he is going to according to another list posting.

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Jack Unger
Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh 
nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz 
for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In 
other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. 
Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a 
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and 
I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
 
Thanks,

Steve



--
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
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread George

Hi Jack,

This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back.

George

Jack Unger wrote:
Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh 
nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz 
for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In 
other words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. 
Your overall throughput capability will be many times greater.


jack



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Jack Unger

George,

I haven't seen his description but I'm glad to hear he's on the right 
track. Do you recall a link to his information?


Thanks,
jack


George wrote:


Hi Jack,

This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back.

George

Jack Unger wrote:

Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
times greater.


jack





--
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
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
This is from a post I made in the Summer.  It runs very nicely on out
4 radio WAR boards.  Pretty sweet actually.

Lonnie

*
I think you are basing your dislike on standard AdHoc mesh.  Remember
I too have come out and said it is not worth our time.  We have some
ideas and we will build something similar to OSPF but more intelligent
and proactive about routes.  We will make use of multiple radios and
even Ethernet feeds.

There is no reason that we cannot do a 5.x GHz mesh feeding some 2.4
GHz microcells.  I see no reason to have a low performance system and
we are shooting for 20 to 30 mbps at each node.  It will not ruin it
for anybody and kill make a KA network.  It will be self healing so
that any failure is simply routed around.

Like OSPF but with steroids and more knowledge of the network.


On 2/22/06, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 George,

 I haven't seen his description but I'm glad to hear he's on the right
 track. Do you recall a link to his information?

 Thanks,
 jack


 George wrote:

  Hi Jack,
 
  This is the way Lonnie described his version of mesh a few months back.
 
  George
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
 
  Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid
  mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on
  2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for
  backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the
  backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many
  times greater.
 
  jack
 
 

 --
 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
 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/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum 
already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule 
higher SU antenna, or long distance.
5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range of 
spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy 
the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In a MESH 
design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the 
realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively 
small panel antennas.


Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum 
supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart enough to use 
the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was 
allocated for.


One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum 
and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared to the other 
ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be 
allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect 
for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret 
weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  Interference and noise is 
accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike 
good RSSI and quality signal.  Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self 
interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and 
lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal 
specification/propertied RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't 
transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every 
single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically 
logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel 
selection.  5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, 
worthless for super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, 
it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to 
fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able 
to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is 
using.  The mesh provider has options.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh 
nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for 
customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other 
words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your 
overall throughput capability will be many times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a 
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and 
I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

 Thanks,
Steve



--
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
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/ 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Jack Unger

Tom,

You make a very good point that 5.3 GHz should be used wherever possible 
while reserving 5.8 for longer-distance backhauling and supercell use. 
We should all be thinking in terms of using 5.3 whenever we can and 
reserving the higher-power 5.8 authorization for those situations where 
we really, really need it.

   jack

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz 
spectrum already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for 
PtP rule higher SU antenna, or long distance.
5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft 
dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range 
of spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated 
255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to 
utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't 
destroy the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In 
a MESH design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all 
within the realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis 
and relatively small panel antennas.


Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the 
spectrum supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart 
enough to use the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the 
reasons it was allocated for.


One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz 
spectrum and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared 
to the other ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 
5.4Ghz range would be allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had 
not. Its still perfect for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing 
high power is the secret weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  
Interference and noise is accumulative and travels for miles around 
corners and obstructions, unlike good RSSI and quality signal.  Get 
better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self interference and noise, by using a 
wider range of channel selections and lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives 
you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal specification/propertied 
RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't transport it in 
1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every single 
additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically logrithmically 
increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel selection.  5.4G 
is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately, worthless for 
super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should, it leaves 
5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to fail, 
because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able to 
give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he 
is using.  The mesh provider has options.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid 
mesh nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 
2.4 GHz for customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for 
backhauling. In other words, separate the access traffic from the 
backhaul traffic. Your overall throughput capability will be many 
times greater.


jack


ISPlists wrote:

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I 
have a small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire 
town and I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be 
great.

 Thanks,
Steve



--
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
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/ 





--
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
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] Mesh Equipment

2006-02-22 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler
That has been our whole focus.

The first part of the puzzle was the 4 port WAR boards.  It is so easy
to deploy a repeater and one or more micro cells if they all come in
one box and you simply attach antennas.

Then we developed the 5 and 10 MHz channel widths.  At 5 MHz width,
for instance, you have 11 channels of non overlapping bandwidth in the
very crowded 2.4 GHz allotment.  5.x GHz gets the same 4X the number
of channels.  Each 5 MHz radio can still deliver almost 7 mbps.

The last piece of the puzzle was the mesh routing.  RIPv2 makes a
large network easy to maintain, but it gets fooled easily and cross
links confuse it greatly.  OSPF is better but is more difficult to set
up and you have to design your network as a 2 layer structure,
something that any larger network quickly exceeds.

Mesh loves cross links and they provide a self healing quality.  Take
a link away and the loss is detected and routed around.  It is easy to
setup and just works.  All you really have to enter are the device
names and the IP segments you want announced.

So, we are nearing the ideal platform - multiple radios, efficient
bandwidth use and superb routing to make use of all of those links.

This is what we have all been dreaming about for years, and it is upon
us.  This is the next generation of wireless people.

Lonnie

On 2/22/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Or realize that everyone in the world is using the precious 5.8Ghz spectrum
 already for long critical links, that are limited to 5.8Ghz for PtP rule
 higher SU antenna, or long distance.
 5.3Ghz is an ideal backhaul channel for MESH, up to 7 miles (with 2 ft
 dish), and avoid the interference headaches.  There is now a HUGE range of
 spectrum available at 1 watt, the 5.3G and 5.4Ghz newly allocated
 255Mhzspectrum usable as if this past January.  Design mesh networks to
 utilize these many channel options, avoid interference, and don't destroy
 the industry by unnecessisarilly using the precious 5.8Ghz.  In a MESH
 design its rare to need to go distances longer than 2 miles, all within the
 realm of possibility with low power 5.3G and 5.4G and Omnis and relatively
 small panel antennas.

 Likewise, reserve the precious 2.4Ghz for the link to consumer, the spectrum
 supported by their laptops.  I hope to see the industry smart enough to use
 the new 5.4Ghz for MESH type systems, which is one of the reasons it was
 allocated for.

 One of the most important tasks for WISPs is to conserve the 5.8Ghz spectrum
 and only use it when needed.  It is in shortage most compared to the other
 ranges. I had hoped and lobbied hard that half of the 5.4Ghz range would be
 allowed for higher power and PtP rules, but it had not. Its still perfect
 for mesh and OFDM. Don;t be fooled into believing high power is the secret
 weapon for mesh, as it is not, LOW power is.  Interference and noise is
 accumulative and travels for miles around corners and obstructions, unlike
 good RSSI and quality signal.  Get better RSSI in MESH, by Reducing self
 interference and noise, by using a wider range of channel selections and
 lower power.  5.3 and 5.4 gives you 350Mhz to select channels from, of equal
 specification/propertied RF.  Design it into your MESH design.  If you can't
 transport it in 1watt, redesign radio install locations and density.  Every
 single additional non-inteferring channel selection, drastically
 logrithmically increases the odds of getting a non-interfering channel
 selection.  5.4G is the best thinng that happened to MESH. Unfortuneately,
 worthless for super cell design.  But if MESH embrases 5.4 like it should,
 it leaves 5.8Ghz for Super cell.  Otherwise the MESH designer is destined to
 fail, because it will become a battle that the Super Cell guy won't be able
 to give up on until his death, as he has no other option but the range he is
 using.  The mesh provider has options.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:29 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


  Unless you expect to handle only very low levels of traffic, avoid mesh
  nodes with only one radio. Choose nodes that have one radio on 2.4 GHz for
  customer connections and one radio on 5.8 GHz for backhauling. In other
  words, separate the access traffic from the backhaul traffic. Your
  overall throughput capability will be many times greater.
 
  jack
 
 
  ISPlists wrote:
 
  Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
  small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and
  I'm thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.
   Thanks,
  Steve
 
 
  --
  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