Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta


On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?

Yes

I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like  
Trango?

Can do that too.

Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on  
VLANs does it?

Not per VLAN, but per SM.


How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?

Trango has no support for it.

PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn  
expensive, and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra  
$180 to put a VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you  
don't want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment.  
Second, if you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer  
that service is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't  
going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Matt Liotta
All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU  
business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on  
radios doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that  
Canopy and Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick  
for our business model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems  
could completely change our point-of-view though.


-Matt

On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and  
Syncing feature of Canopy.
I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many  
cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than  
double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new  
customer is jsut a CPE.


PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay  
$200 per month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.


One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to  
oversubscribe and resell unused capacity. Few people use their  
capacity.

PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be  
preferred for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for  
the end game.
But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers  
a clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if  
leasing.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality  
alone allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many  
as 5  Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all  
operating on  the same channel.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated  
connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating  
polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not   
something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links  
on  a single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do   
they are either small businesses with very little voice and  
data  needs or they are just data customers. All of our  
customers with  any significant amount of voice are running on  
dedicated radios.  I would say our average customer buys 12  
lines of voice and  delivering that over a Canopy backhaul  
works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like  
to  hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually   
doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent  
calls  per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have   
talked to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week  
and  we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you  
bump  up against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does   
not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for  
the softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday,  
June  16, 2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing   
layer 2





transort


for carriers.





We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport   
from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from  
fiber  providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally  
next  step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done  
it  sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached  
weren't  willing to offer them layer 2 transport.




How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how  
do  you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other  
popular  5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of  
many larger

Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.







We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP   
customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios.   
Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we  
can  properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

customer isn't  going to want a cheap piece of network equipment either.


I thought that was the point I was trying to get across. Thus my 
recommendation for a high quality switch.


SMC AL2 series managed switches. Have a Cisco type firmware. IVL supported, 
unlike the older switch models.
$180 each.  Never had one fail in the history of our company. We use them 
all over the place.


Allthough the Cisco like telnet interface is confusing.

(with the exception of when water dripped through the inside of a gel filled 
CAT5 cable for 350 feet, and dripped into an open jack, shorting it out, 
because I had it mounted not considering the possibilty of water dripping.)


Everyone wants to save money if it doesn't compromise the offering. People 
don't buy Orthogon because its expensive they  buy it because its the 
product that is required to solve the problem (Non-LOS).


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




On Jun 19, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?

Yes

I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like 
Trango?

Can do that too.

Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on  VLANs 
does it?

Not per VLAN, but per SM.


How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?

Trango has no support for it.

PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn  expensive, 
and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra  $180 to put a 
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
First, if you are using an Orthogon to backhaul your network you  don't 
want it connected to some cheap piece of network equipment.  Second, if 
you are using an Orthogon to provide service to a customer  that service 
is going to be expensive enough that the customer isn't  going to want a 
cheap piece of network equipment either.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-20 Thread Tom DeReggi

Matt,

We've been through this debate a number of times comparing PTP models to 
PtMP models, and which is better.
I am in no way saying PtP models are not good, just different things to 
consider, neither better.

The acceptabilty of PtMP model has nothing to do with ARPU of subscriber.
I can support $800 ARPU customers off of PtMP model with no problem at all.
Viabilty of PTMP model has to do with how fast rate of growth will happen.

It has taken us a long time to fill up the capacity of our PtMP network.
And because our coverage range is so large, (30 cell sites), our custoemrs 
come in from all over the place, not necessarilly saturating the capacity of 
a single cell site or sector. We find that sales always takes longer than 
people think, so PtMP often has plenty of capacity. Why pay roof rights on 
antennas, that are under used?


A business model can be made to jsutify PtP links, no doubt.  But jsut 
because you can get top ARPU from customers and justify the expendatures, is 
no reason to pay more cost than you need to. Maximum profit is made from 
increasing revenue and REDUCING COSTS, regardless of wether you need to. 
PtMP REDUCES cost in early stages.


Remember a PTMP system can always be upgraded by adding PTP links later to 
expand capacity, and migrate to a PTP model when needed.


The decission to go PTP should be made because of the long term labor 
savings, because you did everything from the beginning optimally to reduce 
future rebuilding.  Or for interference link quality reasons.


I personally do not care about the labor. I got good engineers at $15 an 
hour to do the upgrades.  I figure by the time I need the faster dedicated 
PTP links the technology will be better cheaper and different.  Others that 
use contractors at hefty labor costs, would care more about long term labor 
saving, and preventing replication of work.  The biggest differenciator is 
wether you ahve high roof right fees to pay.  If you are not paying much for 
roof rights, there is little harm in spending the money for additional 
antennas.


I think once a provider as learned a proven growth rate (speed) of what they 
can accomplish, and have a record of their average costs (roof rights) they 
can make the decission of wether a PtMP or PTP model is best.


It also depends on the assets of the provider. Eventually for ALL companies 
credit limits could potentially get exceeded iftheir growth rate was fast 
enough. Unless the provider is a billionaire.  Very few people lease on 
future revenue, business plans, and credit alone (with fair terms). Almost 
all require assets to secure the lease amount other than the radio value. 
100 radios at $10,000 each (say Redline PTP) is a million dollars. PTP can 
get out of hand quick if someone does serious scale quickly.


As a matter of fact, stating PTP helps a provider reach a cash flow positive 
state and healthy books, to speed up a companies abilty to get financing for 
PTP expansion.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


All of your comments are from your perspective using your low ARPU 
business model. When your ARPU easily exceeds $500 spending $2K on  radios 
doesn't seem expensive. Especially in light of the fact that  Canopy and 
Trango PtMP systems would run out of bandwidth too quick  for our business 
model. Newer modulation schemes for PtMP systems  could completely change 
our point-of-view though.


-Matt

On Jun 19, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and  Syncing 
feature of Canopy.

I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many  cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than 
double per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new 
customer is jsut a CPE.


PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay  $200 per 
month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.


One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to  oversubscribe 
and resell unused capacity. Few people use their  capacity.

PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be  preferred 
for avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for  the end game.
But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers  a 
clear advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if  leasing.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  the ability to deliver a 
full 1500 byte payload.


Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago.
Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such as 
MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time.
(although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their newer 
firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago)


Canopy,  Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but 
support  it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango 
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?
I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango?
Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs does 
it?

How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?
If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature, that 
is underpublicized, that buyers should consider.


VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango to add 
for years, unfortuneately they have not yet.
Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they probably 
will, as it would be really easy for them to add it.


I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually put a 
router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't necessary 
for the radio itself to supprot VLAN.  Although, Trango's builtin bandwidth 
management would be usable if they supported VLANs and allowed assigning 
bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber radio.  The largest reason we had 
to commit to using our own bandwdith management platform is the inabilty to 
distinguish between radios that supported jsut one subscriber versus a 
building full of multiple subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio 
enabled bandwidth management.
If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we could 
have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name brand appliances 
that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked the bandwidth 
management features that were essential (such as CISCO).


PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, and if 
you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a 
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  way 
to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  use QinQ 
for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  than a 
desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  landscape as 
it is one of the most interesting and important market  segment for WISPs 
is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  simply, if a WISP doesn't 
offer it then there is a high likelihood  someone else will. One of the 
requirements of layer 2 transport is  the ability to deliver a full 1500 
byte payload. This means that  whatever technology is used to create the 
virtual layer 2 circuit is  going to require a higher MTU. I know we are 
the only organization  that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, 
but I suspect that  will change in the coming months. Further, older 
technologies such as  GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the 
worst requiring an  extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a 
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  Trango, 
and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  it 
nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  sector 
because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  issue and 
I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  this a 
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  product 
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  radios 
support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  20 on 
a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  limit, as 
long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
Great. 1540 covers just about all needs I can think of off the top of my 
head.


I forget exactly what IPSEC used, but I believe it is less than 1540 as 
well.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Brad Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and 
that

is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a 
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product 
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios 
support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as 
long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the 
reasons

that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally 
limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their 
own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking
for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from


beta


testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a


link


is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about 
the

most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all 
B

series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version


(antenna


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP 
backhaul.



It


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(192

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Patrick Shoemaker
Canopy does support 802.1Q at the CPE for both the customer's ethernet 
interface and the built-in management interface.  Not sure about VLAN 
prioritization but there is some sort of high-priority queue mechanism 
for voice or other critical traffic. 


Patrick

Tom DeReggi wrote:
One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  the ability to 
deliver a full 1500 byte payload.


Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago.
Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such 
as MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time.
(although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their 
newer firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago)


Canopy,  Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but 
support  it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a 
Trango sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?
I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango?
Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs 
does it?

How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?
If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature, 
that is underpublicized, that buyers should consider.


VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango 
to add for years, unfortuneately they have not yet.
Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they 
probably will, as it would be really easy for them to add it.


I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually 
put a router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't 
necessary for the radio itself to supprot VLAN.  Although, Trango's 
builtin bandwidth management would be usable if they supported VLANs 
and allowed assigning bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber 
radio.  The largest reason we had to commit to using our own bandwdith 
management platform is the inabilty to distinguish between radios that 
supported jsut one subscriber versus a building full of multiple 
subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio enabled bandwidth 
management.
If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we 
could have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name 
brand appliances that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked 
the bandwidth management features that were essential (such as CISCO).


PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive, 
and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a 
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy 
issues  than a desire to use the current best practice. With the 
regulatory  landscape as it is one of the most interesting and 
important market  segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to 
carriers. Quite  simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a 
high likelihood  someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 
2 transport is  the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This 
means that  whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 
circuit is  going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only 
organization  that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but 
I suspect that  will change in the coming months. Further, older 
technologies such as  GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being 
the worst requiring an  extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a 
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
Maybe thats a question we should be asking you. 
What is your friend using for MPLS?

I beleive Matt is using all Cisco.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to

partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to

allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
used to

backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are  
looking

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the  
data from



beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In  
the

Texas
panhandle one company is getting

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
On a side note, we have had much higher results per sector using Trango for 
VOIP (before any VOIP enhancement.).


Unfortuneately we don't have concrete real world data to report, but its 
pretty high.

We are doing more detailed tests probably in the next week or so.
(as soon as we get our VOIP server built)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd

That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform 
using 50-50 up/down data ratio.  Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using 
25-75 up/down ratio.

Patrick

Jon Langeler wrote:
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! :-) 
Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. Whether 
you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over the 
years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude that a 
Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and 
I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a 
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product 
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios 
support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on 
a

Trango sector.
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 
June 15, 2006 1:33 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as 
long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the 
reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make 
mods to allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally 
limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their 
own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 
1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be 
used to backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 
2006 6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data 
from




beta


testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, 
a




link


is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in 
Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about 
the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 
2001).


The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like 
all B

series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version



(antenna



built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B 
achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and 
sharp

terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP 
backhaul.




It


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick






--
WISPA Wireless List

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
Matt brings out a good point that shows the benefit of PTPs and Syncing 
feature of Canopy.

I don't deny these advantages, and they can be beneficial in many cases.
However, don't forget that your equipment costs go up at more than double 
per new customer compared to PtMP deployments where each new customer is 
jsut a CPE.


PtP model, each new customer is 2 grand. (canopy)
PtMP model, First customer is $1500. (Trango)
PtMP model, each new customer is $500. (Trango)

And this is BEFORE you consider roof right fees. I'd rather pay $200 per 
month for 1 AP antenna than 5 AP/PTP end point antennas.


One of the biggest advantages of Wireless si the abilty to oversubscribe and 
resell unused capacity. Few people use their capacity.

PTP deployments prevent that.

There are arguements that in the long run, the PTP could be preferred for 
avoiding remote interference, or higher capacity for the end game.
But from a startup and profit point of view the PtMP method offers a clear 
advantage, and reduces risk and/or long term liabilty if leasing.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone 
allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5  Canopy 
backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on  the same 
channel.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated 
connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating 
polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not  something 
you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on  a 
single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do  they 
are either small businesses with very little voice and data  needs or 
they are just data customers. All of our customers with  any 
significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios.  I would 
say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and  delivering that 
over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to  hear 
more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually  doing it 
well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls  per 
sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have  talked 
to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and  we 
have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump  up 
against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does  not 
seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the 
softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June  16, 
2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:



Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing  layer 2




transort


for carriers.





We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport  from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber  providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next  step. Further, almost 
all indicated they would have done it  sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't  willing to offer them layer 2 
transport.




How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do  you 
plan to

support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular  5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many 
larger

Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.







We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP  customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios.  Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can  properly 
prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with  Trango. We also 
wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them  --if they require 
it-- with getting their network ready to  support VoIP.



If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans  for 
doing that

with whatever your current technology permits?







I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact  that 
we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest  ARPUs in 
the industry.


-Matt






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-19 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Theyre Cisco too

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Maybe thats a question we should be asking you. 
What is your friend using for MPLS?
I beleive Matt is using all Cisco.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
 last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
 
 QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
 way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
 use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
 than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
 landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
 segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
 simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
 someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
 the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
 whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
 going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
 that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
 will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
 GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
 extra 24 bytes.
 
 I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
 radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
 Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
 it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
 sector because of its lack of VLAN support.
 
 -Matt
 
 On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
 
 As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
 issue and I
 have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
 this a real
 issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
 product line)
 for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
 radios support
 QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
 sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
 play,
 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
 20 on a
 Trango sector.

 Patrick

 -Original Message-
 From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

 Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
 tunnel to
 partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
 For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
 limit, as long

 as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
 reasons
 that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
 mods to
 allow larger packets?
 I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
 severally limit

 its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
 likely
 could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
 their own

 network.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 Our setup requires the following:

 1500 bytes for payload
 4 bytes for VLANs
 4 bytes for LDP
 4 bytes for EoMPLS header
 18 bytes for Ethernet header

 That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
 since
 that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
 Unless 1512
 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
 used to
 backhaul an MPLS network.

 -Matt

 Patrick Leary wrote:

 Matt,

 I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
 1512.

 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to

partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to

allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
used to

backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are  
looking

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the  
data from



beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In  
the

Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big  
Easy, a



link

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in  
Nebraska

told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are  
about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational  
since 2001).


The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product.  
Like all B

series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version


(antenna

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your  
typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B  
achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and  
sharp

terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP  
backhaul.



It


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to
install
backhaul for a very

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Brad Larson
Patrick, With version 4.0 on VL the radio will support jumbo frames and that
is 1540 to allow QinQ transport. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons 
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 Our setup requires the following:

 1500 bytes for payload
 4 bytes for VLANs
 4 bytes for LDP
 4 bytes for EoMPLS header
 18 bytes for Ethernet header

 That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
 that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
 backhaul an MPLS network.

 -Matt

 Patrick Leary wrote:

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking 
for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

link

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

(antenna

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.

It

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick





 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(192).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.

I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.

-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

 As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
 issue and I
 have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
 this a real
 issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
 product line)
 for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
 radios support
 QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
 sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
 play,
 20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
 20 on a
 Trango sector.

 Patrick

 -Original Message-
 From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

 Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
 tunnel to
 partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
 For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
 limit, as long

 as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
 reasons
 that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
 mods to
 allow larger packets?
 I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
 severally limit

 its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
 likely
 could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
 their own

 network.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 Our setup requires the following:

 1500 bytes for payload
 4 bytes for VLANs
 4 bytes for LDP
 4 bytes for EoMPLS header
 18 bytes for Ethernet header

 That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
 since
 that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
 Unless 1512
 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
 used to
 backhaul an MPLS network.

 -Matt

 Patrick Leary wrote:

 Matt,

 I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
 1512.

 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243

 -Original Message-
 From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
 15, 2006
 6:33 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

 Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are  
 looking
 for an MTU of 1532.

 -Matt

 Patrick Leary wrote:


 Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the  
 data from

 beta

 testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In  
 the
 Texas
 panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big  
 Easy, a

 link

 is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in  
 Nebraska
 told
 me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are  
 about the
 most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational  
 since 2001).

 The BreezeNET B100 was just announced

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.


-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

 

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to

partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to

allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


   


Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
used to

backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are  
looking

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


   

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the  
data from


 


beta

   

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In  
the

Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big  
Easy, a


 


link

   

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in  
Nebraska

told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are  
about the
most

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Cisco switches or routers ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.

-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:

Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.

I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.

-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

  

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a
Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
used to
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
15, 2006
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are  
looking
for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:




Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the  
data from

  

beta

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
3750 ME and 6500 series switchs along with 7300 series routers. We use 
2800 series routers for the edges of our network where MPLS is not required.


-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Cisco switches or routers ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.


-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 


Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:



   

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to

partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to

allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


  

 


Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).  
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be  
used to

backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



   


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is  
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June  
15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Patrick Leary
So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be
enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this.


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?

Good discussion by the way.
 
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.

-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:

Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.

I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.

-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:

  

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a
Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to  
tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512  
limit, as long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the  
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make  
mods to
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could  
severally limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients  
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for  
their own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532  
since
that is what

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers.

We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all 
indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.



How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

 

We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize 
voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP 
to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting 
their network ready to support VoIP.



If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?

 

I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we 
bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the 
industry.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Patrick Leary
So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch.
How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:

Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
transort
for carriers.

We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all 
indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.

How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

  

We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize 
voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP 
to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting 
their network ready to support VoIP.

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?

  

I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we 
bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the 
industry.

-Matt

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 

*
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses (191).

*






 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(42).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread John Scrivner
It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU 
adjustment  feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your 
firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for 
wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size 
is something that is critical in many instances. I think you will see 
more use of larger packets (requiring higher MTU settings) to add layers 
for security, QoS, packet aggregation,  etc. I would consider this to be 
a entry level feature for any carrier grade wireless platform. Having 
variable MTU sizes as an option costs you nothing but a few minutes of 
your programmer's time. Not having it could cost you customers.


Regarding WISPs and VOIP. Offering VOIP myself is not a big deal for me 
yet. It will be soon enough whether I am offering it or not. My 
customers are starting to demand access to VOIP. They will not give a 
rat's behind about excuses from me that my network was not optimized for 
VOIP. I either do it right and set myself apart from other network 
operators who do not care about QoS for VOIP or I ignore the wishes of 
my customers. I think I would like to build my network to be VOIP ready. 
Just my 2 cents.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be
enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this.


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?

Good discussion by the way.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running 
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.


-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 


Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred  
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to  
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues  
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory  
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market  
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite  
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood  
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is  
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that  
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is  
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization  
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that  
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as  
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an  
extra 24 bytes.


I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a  
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,  
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support  
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango  
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:



   

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an  
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is  
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the  
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these  
radios support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only  
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe  
20 on a

Trango sector.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are 
either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they 
are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant 
amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average 
customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy 
backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch.
How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
   


transort
 


for carriers.

   

We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all 
indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.


 


How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.



   

We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize 
voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP 
to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting 
their network ready to support VoIP.


 


If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?



   

I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we 
bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the 
industry.


-Matt

 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Brad Larson
So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are 
either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they 
are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant 
amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average 
customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy 
backhaul works just fine.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well
or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to
many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against
8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch.
How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2


transort
  

for carriers.



We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all 
indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.

  

How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

 



We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize 
voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP 
to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting 
their network ready to support VoIP.

  

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing
that
with whatever your current technology permits?

 



I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we 
bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the 
industry.

-Matt

  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(192).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
Sure, it's not like we can't put more than one Canopy backhaul on the 
same channel.


-Matt

Brad Larson wrote:


So you're using a 20 mhz channel to support one business client? Brad

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:37 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they are 
either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or they 
are just data customers. All of our customers with any significant 
amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would say our average 
customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that over a Canopy 
backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it well
   


or
 


is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked to
   


many
 


very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up against
   


8
 


calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the softswitch.
How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:



   


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
  

 


transort


   


for carriers.

  

 

We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost all 
indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 transport.




   


How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.



  

 

We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly prioritize 
voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also wholesale VoIP 
to other operators and help them --if they require it-- with getting 
their network ready to support VoIP.




   


If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing
 


that
 


with whatever your current technology permits?



  

 

I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that we 
bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in the 
industry.


-Matt



   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Jon Langeler
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over 
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude 
that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:


As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.

For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons 
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?

I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 


Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

   


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 
6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking 
for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


 


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

   


beta

 

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas

panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

   


link

 

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told

me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

   


(antenna

 


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.

   


It

 

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick


   

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Travis Johnson

Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a 
single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they 
are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or 
they are just data customers. All of our customers with any 
significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would 
say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that 
over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to hear 
more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it 
well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per 
sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked 
to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we 
have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up 
against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not 
seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the 
softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 
2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
  


transort
 


for carriers.

  


We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from us 
now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers and 
therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, almost 
all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed wireless 
companies they approached weren't willing to offer them layer 2 
transport.


 


How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you 
plan to

support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.



  


We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP customers 
running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is a 
significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly 
prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also 
wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require 
it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP.


 

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for 
doing that

with whatever your current technology permits?



  


I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that 
we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in 
the industry.


-Matt

 




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Brad Larson
John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has
an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small
packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over 
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude 
that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios
support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as
long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons

that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally
limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their
own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


  

Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


  

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from



beta

  

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a



link

  

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about
the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all
B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version



(antenna

  

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP
backhaul.



It

  

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick




  

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread danlist
We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution.  Actual TCP
throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a PTP
BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET across.

This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the internet
link via a 100Mbps fiber.

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
 Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
 
 Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too
 many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the
 most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure.
 We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load
 up any single roof with too many radios.
 
 -Matt
 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Matt,
 
  How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a
  single tower?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they
  are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or
  they are just data customers. All of our customers with any
  significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would
  say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that
  over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.
 
  -Matt
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to
  hear more
  about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it
  well or
  is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per
  sector
  so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked
  to many
  very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we
  have been
  consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up
  against 8
  calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not
  seem like
  enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the
  softswitch.
  How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?
 
  Patrick Leary
  AVP Marketing
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16,
  2006 6:47 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
 
 
  Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
 
 
 
  transort
 
 
  for carriers.
 
 
 
 
  We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from
  us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers
  and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further,
  almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed
  wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them
  layer 2 transport.
 
 
 
  How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
  important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you
  plan to
  support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
  solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
  Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP
  customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is
  a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly
  prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also
  wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require
  it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP.
 
 
 
  If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for
  doing that
  with whatever your current technology permits?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that
  we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in
  the industry.
 
  -Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 --
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/366 - Release Date: 06/15/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Brad Larson
I have seen testing on 4.0 BreezeAccess VL with 64 k packets where the new
4.0 outperformed version 3.1.25 by a very wide margin. Downstream throughput
of 40.29 meg's per second with 59,952 frames per second passed! Data from
3.1.25 was 2.46 meg's and 3,662 frames per second. Most 5 GHz solutions I
have seen tested are well below 3662 frames per second with 64k packets.
Testing of 4.0 with and without internet has been very impressive. Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:32 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

We are running VoIP over a Mikrotik/NSTREAM 5Ghz OFDM solution.  Actual TCP
throughput is about 25Mbps, we have had over 12 VoIP across the PTMP and a
PTP
BH to our NOC were the VoIP service is located while providing INTERNET
across.

This is working with great success and Matt Liotta is providing us the
internet
link via a 100Mbps fiber.

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Systems
www.wbisp.com
781-566-2053 ext 6201
1-888-wbsystem (888) 927-9783
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
 Of Matt Liotta
 Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:25 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
 
 Never tried to put that many on a tower, but then again we don't use too
 many towers. We've had 15 or so on a single roof before, but for the
 most part we never really put more than 5 radios on the same structure.
 We have over 100 roofs under contract, so we don't really need to load
 up any single roof with too many radios.
 
 -Matt
 
 Travis Johnson wrote:
 
  Matt,
 
  How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a
  single tower?
 
  Travis
  Microserv
 
  Matt Liotta wrote:
 
  We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they
  are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or
  they are just data customers. All of our customers with any
  significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would
  say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that
  over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.
 
  -Matt
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
  So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to
  hear more
  about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it
  well or
  is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per
  sector
  so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked
  to many
  very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we
  have been
  consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up
  against 8
  calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not
  seem like
  enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the
  softswitch.
  How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?
 
  Patrick Leary
  AVP Marketing
  Alvarion, Inc.
  o: 650.314.2628
  c: 760.580.0080
  Vonage: 650.641.1243
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16,
  2006 6:47 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
 
  Patrick Leary wrote:
 
 
 
  Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
 
 
 
  transort
 
 
  for carriers.
 
 
 
 
  We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from
  us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers
  and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further,
  almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed
  wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them
  layer 2 transport.
 
 
 
  How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
  important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you
  plan to
  support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
  solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many
larger
  Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP
  customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is
  a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly
  prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also
  wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require
  it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP.
 
 
 
  If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for
  doing that
  with whatever your current technology permits?
 
 
 
 
 
 
  I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that
  we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in
  the industry.
 
  -Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

As you guys know I'm no routing expert.  Take this with a grain of salt

I've got two thoughts on all of this.  First is, any technology we deploy on 
a software side should ride the existing network.  I'm talking big picture 
not niche markets.  A vpn should work as well on wifi as it does on dsl, 
cable, t-1, ds3 or whatever.  If they can't make it do that we should use a 
different solution.


I'm lumping vlans, vpn etc. into that statement.

I'm not saying that there aren't better ways to do things, but I'm tired of 
trying to tweak MY network so that some lazy software guy can build his 
perfect solution and sell it to an unsuspecting customer.  He should make 
his NEW stuff work with my existing stuff!  Even if that means he has to ham 
string it a bit.  If he wants to sell a version with more capabilities and 
my customer wants to pay me for more access that's fine.


Next, on a wireless network big packets can be a very dangerous thing.  They 
are fine if you have no multipath or interference.  Certainly we can make 
the network run faster by sending bigger packets.  But the bigger the packet 
the more likely it will be to be damaged and need to be resent.


I've seen people have to REDUCE the size of the packets they send out in 
order to get their networks stabilized.


Careful what you ask for :-).
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can 
be

enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on 
this.



Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 
transort

for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing 
that

with whatever your current technology permits?

Good discussion by the way.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

I figured my statement would generate comments about others running
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.

-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year.  BTW: what you are using for mpls ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an
extra 24 bytes.

I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.

-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:




As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an
issue and I
have

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Patrick Leary
On the Advantage line that may be true. The numbers I am using were given to
me these past two weeks from current Canopy users with large networks. You
have to remember, with most systems small packets drive down the usable
capacity significantly. You are right that I need to do another batch of
side to side testing, especially with 4.0.

Patrick 
-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over 
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude 
that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a
real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios
support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as
long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons

that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally
limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their
own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


  

Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


  

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from



beta

  

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a



link

  

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about
the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all
B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version



(antenna

  

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP
backhaul.



It

  

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick




  

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Jon Langeler
Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your 
statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your 
insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Brad Larson wrote:


John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has
an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable. Small
packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over 
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude 
that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a
   


real
 


issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios
   


support
 


QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.

For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as
   


long
 


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons
   



 

that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?

I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally
   


limit
 

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their
   


own
 


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




   


Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

 


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006
   



 


6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking
   



 


for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:




   


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

  

 


beta



   

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas

panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

  

 


link



   

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told

me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about
 


the
 


most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all
 


B
 


series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

  

 


(antenna



   


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP
 


backhaul.
 

  

 


It



   

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just

RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Brad Larson
What I'm saying is data rates are only one part of doing voip. I know what
Canopy can do...You said I'm sure you'll conclude that a Canopy
AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls. Data rates have
very little to do with a scaling voip system with and without internet. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Brad, I'm not disputing the Alvarion numbers, they look great. Your 
statement below is absolutely true but this could get funny if your 
insisting on backing up that 8-10 number regarding Canopy...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Brad Larson wrote:

John, Testing by Alvarion engineers has been done. Saying that a radio has
an aggregate throughput of 14 meg's for voip is not really applicable.
Small
packets through the radio can bring most systems to their knees. Brad

-Original Message-
From: Jon Langeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways over 
the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll conclude 
that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more than 10 calls...

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a


real
  

issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios


support
  

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as


long
  

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the
reasons



  

that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally


limit
  

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their


own
  

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 



Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

   

  

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15,
2006



  

6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are
looking



  

for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


 



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

   

  

beta

 



testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

   

  

link

 



is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about
  

the
  

most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since
2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all
  

B
  

series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

   

  

(antenna

 



built-in) is bought

Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Patrick Shoemaker

http://motorola.canopywireless.com/fp/downlink.php?id=81af5294d462cbcbf93ee9f1ea2599fd

That moto whitepaper claims 26-28 calls per AP on the advantage platform 
using 50-50 up/down data ratio.  Calls per AP drops to 13-18 when using 
25-75 up/down ratio. 


Patrick

Jon Langeler wrote:
Patrick, my string-and-can wifi asterisk ap does more than 10 calls! 
:-)Honestly, 288 G711 calls is probably more towards the high end. 
Whether you would like to realize it or not, canopy has come a ways 
over the years. If you consult with your engineers I'm sure you'll 
conclude that a Canopy AP/SU(14Mbps aggregate) could do a LOT more 
than 10 calls...


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Patrick Leary wrote:

As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue 
and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this 
a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product 
line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios 
support

QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 
on a

Trango sector.
Patrick
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 
June 15, 2006 1:33 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel 
to partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, 
as long


as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the 
reasons that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will 
make mods to allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could 
severally limit


its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients 
likely could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was 
for their own


network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 


Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 
since that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). 
Unless 1512 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios 
can't be used to backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 
1512.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 
15, 2006 6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data 
from


  

beta


testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In 
the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big 
Easy, a


  

link


is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in 
Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are 
about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 
2001).


The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. 
Like all B

series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

  

(antenna



built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B 
achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and 
sharp

terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP 
backhaul.


  

It


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Jon Langeler
It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated 
connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating 
polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not something 
you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)  


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on a 
single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do they 
are either small businesses with very little voice and data needs or 
they are just data customers. All of our customers with any 
significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios. I would 
say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and delivering that 
over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to 
hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually doing it 
well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls per 
sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have talked 
to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and we 
have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump up 
against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does not 
seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the 
softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 16, 
2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2
  



transort
 


for carriers.

  



We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport from 
us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber providers 
and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next step. Further, 
almost all indicated they would have done it sooner, but the fixed 
wireless companies they approached weren't willing to offer them 
layer 2 transport.


 


How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you 
plan to

support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.



  



We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP 
customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios. Canopy is 
a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can properly 
prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with Trango. We also 
wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them --if they require 
it-- with getting their network ready to support VoIP.


 

If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for 
doing that

with whatever your current technology permits?



  



I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact that 
we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest ARPUs in 
the industry.


-Matt

 





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-16 Thread Matt Liotta
You don't need connectorized backhauls. The sync functionality alone  
allows you to densely colocate backhauls. We've had as many as 5  
Canopy backhauls mounted within feet of each other all operating on  
the same channel.


-Matt

On Jun 16, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:

It's theoretically possible to engineer up to 8 equally seperated  
connectorized Canopy backhauls on a tower using alternating  
polarizations and just one channel. Let's just say this is not  
something you'll find in the Canopy manual :-)

Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Travis Johnson wrote:


Matt,

How do you fit more than 10-12 of those type of dedicated links on  
a single tower?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

We rarely use multi-point systems for customers and when we do  
they are either small businesses with very little voice and data  
needs or they are just data customers. All of our customers with  
any significant amount of voice are running on dedicated radios.  
I would say our average customer buys 12 lines of voice and  
delivering that over a Canopy backhaul works just fine.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

So you agree then that being able to do VoIP is key. I'd like to  
hear more
about your experiences with VoIP. Is your solution actually  
doing it well or
is that your idea of doing VoIP well is 8 only concurrent calls  
per sector
so long as the quality is decent for those few calls? We have  
talked to many
very users of other common 5GHz brands these past few week and  
we have been
consistently told that performance is just dandy until you bump  
up against 8
calls. That is a less than 50 call per cell limit, which does  
not seem like
enough to justify the investments needed on the NOC end for the  
softswitch.

How do you define good VoIP performance Matt?

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June  
16, 2006 6:47 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing  
layer 2





transort


for carriers.





We have multiple CLECs and non-CLECs buying layer 2 transport  
from us now. All are used to buy alternative access from fiber  
providers and therefore fixed wireless was a naturally next  
step. Further, almost all indicated they would have done it  
sooner, but the fixed wireless companies they approached weren't  
willing to offer them layer 2 transport.




How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do  
you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular  
5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many  
larger

Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.







We are doing a significant amount of VoIP now. We have VoIP  
customers running on top of both Trango and Canopy radios.  
Canopy is a significantly better solution for VoIP since we can  
properly prioritize voice with Canopy, while we cannot with  
Trango. We also wholesale VoIP to other operators and help them  
--if they require it-- with getting their network ready to  
support VoIP.



If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans  
for doing that

with whatever your current technology permits?







I believe VoIP is the number one way to grow ARPU and the fact  
that we bundle VoIP is why I believe we have one of the highest  
ARPUs in the industry.


-Matt






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Matt Liotta
Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 

 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Patrick Leary
Matt, since I do not know I am checking for you. Hope to have an answer
before I head off to a meeting in 30 minutes. By the way, some other
features include forward error correction, built-in spectrum analyzer with
automatic clear channel selection and of course ATPC. The antenna options
are integrated 21dBi panels or units with external antenna connectors for
use with a 23dBi or 28dBi panel.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from
beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a
link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
(antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.
It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 

  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 

*
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses (191).

*






 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Patrick Leary
Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from
beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a
link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
(antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.
It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 

  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 

*
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses (191).

*






 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Matt Liotta

Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from
   


beta
 


testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a
   


link
 


is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
   


(antenna
 


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.
   


It
 


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Whats ldp ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from


beta
  

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a


link
  

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version


(antenna
  

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.


It
  

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 

 




  


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Matt Liotta

Label Distribution Protocol (RFC 3036)

-Matt

Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Whats ldp ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are 
looking for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



   


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from
  

 


beta


   


testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a
  

 


link


   


is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska
 


told
 


me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
  

 


(antenna


   


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.
  

 


It


   


is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 




  

 




   



 



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Jack Unger

Patrick,

I'd appreciate all the info you can send me. One of my clients is 
considering B28s.


Thanks,
jack

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA.
http://www.ask-wi.com/2002locations.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Jack Unger
Oops, my apologies... this email should have gone direct and not to the 
list. I'lll tri too bee morf careflull...



Jack Unger wrote:


Patrick,

I'd appreciate all the info you can send me. One of my clients is 
considering B28s.


Thanks,
jack

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data 
from beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, 
a link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told

me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version 
(antenna

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP 
backhaul. It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA.
http://www.ask-wi.com/2002locations.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Charles Wu
Hi Patrick,

For clarification purposes -- 70 Mbps is achievable only in Turbo mode (40
Mhz channel sizes) correct?
Also -- will it support a slim 5 or 10 Mhz channel mode?

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:13 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K




Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version (antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul. It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,

Is this 1512 limit for all the B14, B28, and B100 models?
Is this limit the same for the VL models?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are
looking for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told

me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

(antenna

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.

It

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






*
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses (191).

*










This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long 
as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons 
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit 
its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own 
network.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K



Our setup requires the following:

1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header

That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
backhaul an MPLS network.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 
6:33 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking 
for an MTU of 1532.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from


beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas

panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a


link

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told

me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version


(antenna


built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.


It

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install

backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

2006-06-15 Thread Patrick Leary
As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe 20 on a
Trango sector. 

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to tunnel to 
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC.  Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512 limit, as long

as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the reasons 
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make mods to 
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could severally limit

its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients likely 
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for their own

network.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


 Our setup requires the following:

 1500 bytes for payload
 4 bytes for VLANs
 4 bytes for LDP
 4 bytes for EoMPLS header
 18 bytes for Ethernet header

 That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532 since 
 that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600). Unless 1512 
 is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be used to 
 backhaul an MPLS network.

 -Matt

 Patrick Leary wrote:

Matt,

I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is 1512.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K

Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are looking 
for an MTU of 1532.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the data from

beta

testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In the 
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big Easy, a

link

is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in Nebraska 
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational since 2001).

The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product. Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version

(antenna

built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and sharp
terrain.

We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP backhaul.

It

is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to 
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.

Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.

Patrick





 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(192).








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses(43).




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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