Yeppers. Me too.
Part of why I'm on these lists is for the knowledge to be gained. Good AND
bad.
thanks,
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65
Be nice to email the guy to tell him the dishes could be sold on ebay for
more than the tower is worth.
What a shame.
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:33 AM
Subject: [WISPA] How
roflol
Yeah, I didn't think of that.
too funny
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How NOT to take down your new used tower!
Be nice to email the
This is also available if you run Cacti. I added it to my standard CPE
template a while back.
ryan
Pat O'Connor wrote:
We're just starting to test this program. It's free so what the heck.
http://oss.oetiker.ch/smokeping/
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Guaranteeing latency
One of the
With Canopy, and a correctly configured polling AP there is no
competition for time slices unless the AP is overloaded. This is how
the latency is consistent. Canopy has what is called control slots.
This is a predetermined time that the SM is allowed to ask for
resources. Increasing
Can you SNMP query the SU, to pull latency stats that might have been
recorded at the SU from the SU side?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Not quite sure what all is in the MIB but Canopy has fixed AP/SM latency.
It is always the same unless the AP is totally out of headroom. And that is
easy to manage by not overloading the AP. Once you are in the 130-160 range
of SMs on an AP it is time to add another AP.
- Original
I can hear it now - Hey Ya'll - watch this
__
Jerry Richardson
airCloud Communications
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 6:33 AM
To: WISPA
idiots
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Yikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiivRoXLkSMfeature=related
Gotta be a better way to do this.
marlon
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
With Canopy, and a correctly configured polling AP there is no
competition for time slices unless the AP is overloaded. This is how
Won't be long and they will be overloaded.
http://tinyurl.com/5tel8m
As a rule of thumb we do not currently offer rate plans that are more
then 33 percent
looked like fun! :)
--
* Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org http://www.wispa.org/
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services*
*Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net
What we are also learnign is that we can only Guarantee what the customer's
usage perception was, and we can go faster than teh weakest link.
For example, From our NOC to the customer we can usually get less than 5ms
to any/everywhere.
5ms to anywhere in your network? Wow. What are you
We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak of
there.
From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:08 PM
Subject:
Hi,
Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5
cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link?
We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site
enough to establish a link. I am just wondering how much increase in
signal we would see by switching
You could just toss the cards in there and do a quick configure.
$216 for the parts should be easy to show on the books. :)
ryan
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5
cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link?
We have a 15 mile
We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak of
there.
From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.
Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site. How much does that cost?
Matt
Hi,
It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down
(again). I have XR5 cards sitting on my desk... but if I'm only going
to see 1db of improvement, it's not worth 5 hours of time. ;)
Travis
Microserv
D. Ryan Spott wrote:
You could just toss the cards in there and do a
There is a difference between u.fl and mmcx on signal levels?
Blair Davis wrote:
I-2db.
Maybe more, but only if you are going from u.fl pigtails to mmcx
pigtails...
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down
(again). I
I've seen about 2 dB difference from sr5 to xr5.
Jim
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5
cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link?
We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site
enough to establish a
What I have seen is not so much an improvement in the receive db reading
as in the CCQ. I don't remember how much it changed, but I have a
couple of links that were having issues with intermittent drops that
went away with the XR5 cards.
Travis Johnson wrote:
Hi,
It's a 2 hour drive (each
The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
MMCX cables typically use a larger cable, so less loss.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
From: Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5
There is a difference between u.fl
Guaranteeing latency
One of the things we learned is that the ISP can't measure the customer's
experience of latency accurately. And if the can;t measure it, they cant
guarantee it.
When pings initiate from the AP side, they always send without delay.
When pings initiate from the SU side,
Yikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiivRoXLkSMfeature=related
Gotta be a better way to do this.
marlon
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
what is the output of those cards?
the xr5 are 600mW aren't they?
aren't the sr5 400mW?
*600mW (28dBm)
400mW (26dBm)*
the posted results seem accurate.
Mario
Mike Hammett wrote:
The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Yep. And I went from u.fl to mmcx pigtails, which as in the other
messages, I think gives some improvement.
Mike Hammett wrote:
The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
It appears that Canopy has stepped up its game with their more recent
models.
Thats good to hear.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent:
Nothing, if you own the fiber.
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak
of
you can decide how much bandwidth you want to set aside for
ARQ.
Thats pretty cool. is that a new feature as of a specif fiormware, or has
it been there all along?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown
Been there for quite some time. Not sure when it was added.
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
you can decide how much bandwidth you want
I've heard lots of good things about Dragonwave I can speak for
Redline an50s. My favorite toy ever.
On 11/4/08, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Been there for quite some time. Not sure when it was added.
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA
Correct.
Mario Pommier wrote:
what is the output of those cards?
the xr5 are 600mW aren't they?
aren't the sr5 400mW?
*600mW (28dBm)
400mW (26dBm)*
the posted results seem accurate.
Mario
Mike Hammett wrote:
The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do.
--
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html
:(
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA
--
* Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member *
*
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Charles Wyble wrote:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html
We didn't win everything, but we didn't lose, either. I sent a
summary from the WISPA attorney representing us on this issue to
this list.
--
It's not the output power that differentiates SR radios from XR radios. We
got better quality links from 100mW CM9s than SR cards. The XR radios are
finer grained and hear better.
Mario Pommier wrote:
what is the output of those cards?
the xr5 are 600mW aren't they?
aren't the sr5 400mW?
What exactly didn't we win?
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:08 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html
:(
Useful power levels in the whitespaces.
B UT, we've not seen the actual rules from the FCC yet. It's entirely
possible that the rules will be better than what's being reported so far.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List
I can make do with 4 watts EIRP if that is what we end up with.
If the is the only thing we didn't get, I would say we pitched a shutout.
- Original Message -
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:13 PM
Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our
industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but
in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were
music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise
White spaces are the blank pages on which we will
I agree with you Marlon.
We haven't seen the actual rules yet. The Network World article looks
very poorly written. I would not start drawing win or lose
conclusions based on that cheesy article. Once the actual rules are
published, then we will know which points benefit us and which points
http://www.wispa.org/?p=311
Respectfully,
Rick Harnish
General Manager - Midwest Region
Great American Broadband
260-827-2482
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
Yes, I agree 4 Watts would have been a huge victory, but we didn't get 4
watts. It appears that we got 100mw EIRP, which is worthless for anything
other than short range personal portable devices.
It appears that we got shut out. At 100mw, they might have well just
auctioned it to the RBOCs,
I see. Yes, I agree. 100 mw EIRP is good for a wireless mic but not much
else.
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win
Yes, I agree 4
Butch,
Then, the music turned to noise
You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment.
They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and
said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a
very important part of broadband delivery..
The
Guys,
I just got word that 100mw was only for personal portable.
FCC proposed rules also includes a provision for 5 Watts Fixed
deployment!!
WooHoo
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL
Tom,
You act surprised and shocked that the FCC listened to the two biggest
technology companies in the world, rather than a small group of WISP's.
It's pretty much normal politics, even at the FCC. The person with the
biggest checkbook always wins. ALWAYS.
It would be nice to see things
Can we hope that is 5 watts TX power with some gain on the antenna
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: WISPA Board Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:37 PM
Subject:
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Tom DeReggi wrote:
I just got word that 100mw was only for personal portable.
FCC proposed rules also includes a provision for 5 Watts Fixed
deployment!!
Where did you see/hear that?
--
* Butch Evans
I agree we need to wait until the power details are published rather
than get all spun up over one magazine article which appears to be
poorly written.
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Yes, I agree 4 Watts would have been a huge victory, but we didn't get 4
watts. It appears that we got 100mw EIRP, which
I think it's too early to know what power levels were or were not
authorized today. I listened to the actual meeting today and I never
heard any mention of power levels. AFAIK the actual maximum power levels
were not announced today - or did I miss something?
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
I see.
Licensed Lite without unlicensed present
Useful power levels
We'll know for sure when the actual rules are published.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMO, the best thing I've done to my network is switch to a Mikrotik
firewall and prioritize traffic. I friend of mine offered a sample
script whcih I have attached. Obviously, you need to tweak it to fit
your needs.
-RickG
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, RC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I try
53 matches
Mail list logo
