I was talking to some people today who deploy wireless networks in very
noise environments, and some of them were talking about deploying radios
under the building or tree line in an attempt to get less nodes.
One person said that this practice is common in places like NYC where
the street
I am looking for multiradio wifi units that handle well in environments
with high floor noise levels, particularly in city areas where the
unlicensed band is very congested.
Any suggestions?
WISPA Wants You! Join
Anyone here use any IP accounting solutions?
Say you have one IP hog. How do you find them and alert on that?
(Yes, I know about tools like MRTG, but I'm wondering if others have any
other more comprehensive solutions)
Take a look at ntop (http://ntop.org).
It will show you how much bandwidth each IP address is using, who they
are talking to, and what protocols they are using.
On 6/12/08, Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone here use any IP accounting solutions?
Say you have one IP hog. How do you find
Jonathan Auer wrote:
Take a look at ntop (http://ntop.org).
It will show you how much bandwidth each IP address is using, who they
are talking to, and what protocols they are using.
I've actually used that, and it's great.
Good call!
Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
Rogelio wrote:
I am looking for multiradio wifi units that handle well in environments
with high floor noise levels, particularly in city areas where the
unlicensed band is very congested.
Any suggestions?
Jack Unger wrote:
Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
True. But aren't there some wifi units that get better radio
sensitivity due to channel bandwidth and the noise figure of the radio?
What doesn't work with Vonage?
Is it the quality of the call or the service itself?
Probably call quality.
Anecdotal evidence ahoy!
One of my field techs, who has our wireless service at his home, tried
Vonage for a few months, but the call quality was lousy. He later switched
to Packet 8
In my days at EarthLink we did discover that the noise levels in both
the
2.4 and 5 GHz bands were much lower at street level than up on high
buildings or towers. This was both good and bad. It was good in that we had
a better signal to noise ratio. The reason being that in Philly the
Jack Unger wrote:
Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
Might low noise amplifiers help in these situations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_amplifier
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
On 12 Jun 2008, at 20:17, Rogelio wrote:
Jack Unger wrote:
Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
True. But aren't there some wifi units that get better radio
sensitivity due to channel bandwidth and the noise figure of the
radio?
With standard clients or proprietary?
Another WISP told me Packet8 works better on a wireless network than Vonage.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Voip over Wireless
What
On Jun 12, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Wallace L. Walcher wrote:
Another WISP told me Packet8 works better on a wireless network than
Vonage.
It comes down to codec being used and the jitter buffer. Packet 8 has
a significant jitter buffer. There's a noticeable delay that's very
awkward. Really
C/I ratio is a good metric
- Original Message -
From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] good multiradio wifi units for noise environments?
Jack Unger wrote:
The noise figure of the receiver front end or of a low noise amplifier will
help you to pick out a weak signal in the absence of interference. But you
are talking about an environment of interference. A low noise amplifier
could actually hurt in this case depending on the third order
In high noise areas you'll be better off to use almost anything but WiFi.
It's the least noise tolerant protocol that I know of.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:07 PM
Subject:
Brandon has the best solution out there. It's also cost effective.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] ip accounting solns
Anyone here use any IP accounting
Better sensitivity is a BAD thing in a high noise area.
I do like the MT units that include what amounts to a squelch function.
Won't help on a laptop though. Only if you use them as both ap and cpe.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jack Unger [EMAIL
As a rule, no.
Low noise vs. no noise.
We're getting the same ranges with less than 4 watt systems and no amps as
we did with 4 watt amped systems.
The most amazing part of that Speeds nearly always double or more!
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Rogelio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, we need a little more information to answer this...
Is this for a hot spot?
Is this for fixed service?
Is this for a mobile (clients in a park, for instance) service?
Star-OS recently added an upper and lower limiter to radio sensitivity. In
point to point links, you can bracket
I have not used it personally. I have had 3 customers try it and say it
worked but many calls dropped and lots of echo. We may have just helped
that a bunch in that we just reduced the number of hops to our network from
6 Wireless hops to 1 hop to fiber. I am just looking for a service that is
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
(1) For purposes of Deployment, this program requires .Net 2.0. The
install
program will check for the existence of .Net 2.0 on the target
machine and
will attempt to install it if it is not already installed.
Unfortunately,
.Net
I'm using a VoIP service that the customer fills out a request form including
what number they want, I email to my VoIP guy. He will program and ship it to
them. He sends me a bill for the ATA and Shipping of about $45.00. I send the
customer a bill for $79.00 for the setup. My VoIP guy charges
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC. The point
is to
avoid having to install a separate Framework. Ideally, I'd like a
linker
that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely
upon.
The Java VM
When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java wins out.
When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would have to
disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years) development
has turned to the .Net platform.
Regardless, I am still seeking a 3rd
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java
wins out.
When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would
have to
disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years)
development
has
Very nice Larry.
Let us all know what we can do to help.
PC
Blaze Broadband
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:08 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program
I really don't get how V3 is difficult to figure out.
Before I was doing this, I was dragging phone/data cables for the AF.
Before that I ran a Husqvarna for a logging company. Before that, I
worked on a small ranch. I'm a pretty common sence kind of guy and
don't like things that don't work
What do others here do in situations where a mesh has multiple gateways?
Say you have a large mesh and each egrees is a satellite uplink to a
different ISP provider.
Would you just assign multiple gateways on the DHCP server?
Or would you use something like RADIUS to assign different network
On 13 Jun 2008, at 04:28, Larry Yunker wrote:
It also means the program doesn't work with no Windows computers,
which are increasingly gaining market share.
True... I don't have a Mac, so I can't building for that market.
While I could and probably will build something for Linux
If you don't need roaming capability treat each one as it's own network or
you could create one centralized distribution facility.
Dustin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rogelio
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:01 PM
To: WISPA General
Python is an excellent cross-platform language. Py2exe can generate
.exe files from the scripts.
So, you could pretty easily compile in your .ini files for each ISP.
And Python is awful nice to write in.
- Japhy
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Larry Yunker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When it
Dustin Jurman wrote:
If you don't need roaming capability treat each one as it's own network or
you could create one centralized distribution facility.
I would like roaming, actually. Ideally, the entire mesh would be on
the same LAN subnet and each user would be assigned the gateway that
33 matches
Mail list logo
