Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-18 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads


Regardless of the original thread topic, I'd argue that...

The goal is to find a manufacturer that can deliver what we need, the 
complete solution, at the price we need. If someone can do that, there is 
not much more to find out, in my mind. Its not about who is better, its who 
can deliver, because WISPs are starving for solutions.  When I think about 
it, until just recently, I have been using the same product that I selected 
as best for me 5 years ago and there are two reasons for it. 1) Loyalty to 
vendor  and 2) there is lots of advancement, but not enough of a value to 
justify change.  A great OS does nothing if it can;t run on adequate 
hardware, and adequate hardware can't do much without adequate software.


I am exstatic to hear about what Lonnie has accomplished with his new War/V3 
solution.  To my recognition, he is the first to deliver a complete low cost 
solution to meet todays ISP's backhaul needs. (that means he's listening to 
WISPs).  It delivers low cost, total link w/ antennas, radios, cases, etc, 
under $1000, it allows us to transparently bridge without compromising MTU 
delivery, and it will pass 35 mbps, adeqaute speed for backhauling a 6 six 
sector cell site.  First, a product must meet the need of the solution. 
Every other component of the OS's I feel are almost pointless, or just value 
add to help tip the scale.  A 12-20 mbps solution is just not enough.


I'm not saying there are not other vendors with adeqaute solutions, nor that 
the other products don't have valueable features for other solutions. But 
War/V3 might have been the first to deliver all three needs in a PTP (also 
possibly PtMP sectors, but thats a different discussion with different 
things to compare.). For that recognition is due, and I commend him.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: JohnnyO [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:32 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps?  Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz
channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel).

Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its
shortcomings, has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS
533MHz hardware?

*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We
shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~

JohnnyO

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Lonnie,

Wow, that was fast.  Great New!
Testing starts this week.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2



Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards



have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that



more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to



well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took



a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Lonnie,

When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make



a public announcement. If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk
for you persoanlly, to promote
the feature.
Thanks.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless

RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-18 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Let me add that the new version of StarOs is passing vlans like a charm...
Kudos for Valemount for such a quick response to customer request...


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: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads

Regardless of the original thread topic, I'd argue that...

The goal is to find a manufacturer that can deliver what we need, the 
complete solution, at the price we need. If someone can do that, there is 
not much more to find out, in my mind. Its not about who is better, its who 
can deliver, because WISPs are starving for solutions.  When I think about 
it, until just recently, I have been using the same product that I selected 
as best for me 5 years ago and there are two reasons for it. 1) Loyalty to 
vendor  and 2) there is lots of advancement, but not enough of a value to 
justify change.  A great OS does nothing if it can;t run on adequate 
hardware, and adequate hardware can't do much without adequate software.

I am exstatic to hear about what Lonnie has accomplished with his new War/V3

solution.  To my recognition, he is the first to deliver a complete low cost

solution to meet todays ISP's backhaul needs. (that means he's listening to 
WISPs).  It delivers low cost, total link w/ antennas, radios, cases, etc, 
under $1000, it allows us to transparently bridge without compromising MTU 
delivery, and it will pass 35 mbps, adeqaute speed for backhauling a 6 six 
sector cell site.  First, a product must meet the need of the solution. 
Every other component of the OS's I feel are almost pointless, or just value

add to help tip the scale.  A 12-20 mbps solution is just not enough.

I'm not saying there are not other vendors with adeqaute solutions, nor that

the other products don't have valueable features for other solutions. But 
War/V3 might have been the first to deliver all three needs in a PTP (also 
possibly PtMP sectors, but thats a different discussion with different 
things to compare.). For that recognition is due, and I commend him.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: JohnnyO [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Brad Belton
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:32 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps?  Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz
 channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel).

 Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its
 shortcomings, has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS
 533MHz hardware?

 *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We
 shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~

 JohnnyO

 Brad

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

 Lonnie,

 Wow, that was fast.  Great New!
 Testing starts this week.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 Tom,

 The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
 values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
 very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards

 have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

 We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
 updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
 version.

 I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
 that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
 works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
 value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
 rip) for free.

 We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
 bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that

 more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
 with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
 allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

 We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to

 well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Lonnie,

When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
public announcement.
If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote
the feature.
Thanks.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
 can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
 vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
 one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

 Lonnie

 On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

 V3 has support for a fully transparent
  client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
  system.

 That is good news!

  License Fee after 1 year.

 The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

  We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
  device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

 Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused
 between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
 Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition
 of
 VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU
 above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
 allowed
 or possibly for passing MPLS).

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Paul Hendry
So with this MTU increase is there any chance of packet aggregation so we
can make use of it?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 17 August 2006 07:24
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
 public announcement.
 If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote
 the feature.
 Thanks.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
  can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
  vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
  one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Lonnie,
 
  I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.
 
  V3 has support for a fully transparent
   client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
   system.
 
  That is good news!
 
   License Fee after 1 year.
 
  The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.
 
   We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
   device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.
 
  Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get
confused
  between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
  Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for
addition
  of
  VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet
MTU
  above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
  allowed
  or possibly for passing MPLS).
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
  --
  Lonnie Nunweiler
  Valemount Networks Corporation
  http://www.star-os.com/
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 16/08/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 16/08/2006
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The Atheros card already does
packet aggregation and compression.  We have tested with and without
the features and it does make a difference, with the better numbers
once the features are enabled.

We would not be planning on adding this for Ethernet.

Lonnie

On 8/17/06, Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So with this MTU increase is there any chance of packet aggregation so we
can make use of it?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 17 August 2006 07:24
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
 public announcement.
 If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote
 the feature.
 Thanks.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
  can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
  vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
  one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Lonnie,
 
  I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.
 
  V3 has support for a fully transparent
   client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
   system.
 
  That is good news!
 
   License Fee after 1 year.
 
  The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.
 
   We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
   device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.
 
  Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get
confused
  between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
  Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for
addition
  of
  VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet
MTU
  above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
  allowed
  or possibly for passing MPLS).
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
  --
  Lonnie Nunweiler
  Valemount Networks Corporation
  http://www.star-os.com/
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 16/08/2006


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 16/08/2006


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

Wow, that was fast.  Great New!
Testing starts this week.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2



Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Lonnie,

When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
public announcement.
If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to 
promote

the feature.
Thanks.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
 can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
 vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
 one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

 Lonnie

 On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

 V3 has support for a fully transparent
  client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
  system.

 That is good news!

  License Fee after 1 year.

 The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

  We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
  device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

 Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get 
 confused

 between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
 Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for 
 addition

 of
 VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet 
 MTU

 above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
 allowed
 or possibly for passing MPLS).

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Brad Belton
11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps?  Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz
channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel).

Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its shortcomings,
has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS 533MHz hardware?

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Lonnie,

Wow, that was fast.  Great New!
Testing starts this week.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 Tom,

 The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
 values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
 very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
 have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

 We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
 updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
 version.

 I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
 that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
 works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
 value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
 rip) for free.

 We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
 bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
 more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
 with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
 allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

 We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
 well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
 a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
 patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
 reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
 release can do.

 Lonnie



 On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
 public announcement.
 If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to 
 promote
 the feature.
 Thanks.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
  can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
  vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
  one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Lonnie,
 
  I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.
 
  V3 has support for a fully transparent
   client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
   system.
 
  That is good news!
 
   License Fee after 1 year.
 
  The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.
 
   We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
   device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.
 
  Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get 
  confused
  between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
  Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for 
  addition
  of
  VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet 
  MTU
  above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
  allowed
  or possibly for passing MPLS).
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
  --
  Lonnie Nunweiler
  Valemount Networks Corporation
  http://www.star-os.com/
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

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

-- 
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

RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread JohnnyO


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:32 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps?  Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz
channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel).

Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its
shortcomings, has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS
533MHz hardware?

*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We
shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~

JohnnyO

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Lonnie,

Wow, that was fast.  Great New!
Testing starts this week.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 Tom,

 The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high 
 values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its 
 very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards

 have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

 We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the 
 updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR 
 version.

 I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode 
 that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything 
 works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add 
 value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
 rip) for free.

 We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, 
 bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that

 more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet 
 with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will 
 allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

 We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to

 well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took

 a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being 
 patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never 
 reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new 
 release can do.

 Lonnie



 On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make

 a public announcement. If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk 
 for you persoanlly, to promote
 the feature.
 Thanks.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people

  can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some 
  vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and 
  each one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Lonnie,
 
  I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.
 
  V3 has support for a fully transparent
   client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP

  system.
 
  That is good news!
 
   License Fee after 1 year.
 
  The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.
 
   We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for 
   every device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU 
   size.
 
  Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get
  confused
  between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its
the
  Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for 
  addition
  of
  VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP
packet 
  MTU
  above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger
MTU
  allowed
  or possibly for passing MPLS).
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
  --
  Lonnie Nunweiler
  Valemount Networks Corporation
  http://www.star-os.com/
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Leszek Olszewski

Not exactly full featured packet aggregation.

What it does it joins two packets together into one bigger. If you have 14 100 bytes 
packets (which is avg over regular networks) it will join each two of them into one 200 
bytes packet and send it through as 7 packets. Real packet aggregation implementation 
joins all 14 of these packets into one 1400 bytes packet and sends it as one bigger 
instead of 7 smaller.


This makes huge impact under heavy load.

Regards,
Leszek


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The Atheros card already does
packet aggregation and compression.  We have tested with and without
the features and it does make a difference, with the better numbers
once the features are enabled.

We would not be planning on adding this for Ethernet.

Lonnie

On 8/17/06, Paul Hendry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So with this MTU increase is there any chance of packet aggregation so we
can make use of it?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 17 August 2006 07:24
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Tom,

The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high
values if your cards support jumbo frames.  Our WAR board, with its
very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU.  Most other cards
have limits in the 2K to 4K range.

We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the
updated x86 WRAP version.  They  have the same features as the WAR
version.

I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode
that is no longer a 24 hour trial.  It saves settings and everything
works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add
value.  You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and
rip) for free.

We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing,
bandwidth control and our firewall scripting.  We are pretty sure that
more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet
with approval.  Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will
allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding.

We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to
well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB.  It took
a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being
patient.  Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never
reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new
release can do.

Lonnie



On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a
 public announcement.
 If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to 
promote

 the feature.
 Thanks.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
  can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
  vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
  one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.
 
  Lonnie
 
  On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Lonnie,
 
  I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.
 
  V3 has support for a fully transparent
   client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
   system.
 
  That is good news!
 
   License Fee after 1 year.
 
  The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.
 
   We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
   device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.
 
  Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get
confused
  between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its 
the

  Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for
addition
  of
  VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP 
packet

MTU
  above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
  allowed
  or possibly for passing MPLS).
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
  --
  Lonnie Nunweiler
  Valemount Networks Corporation
  http://www.star-os.com/
  --
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

 --
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

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

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread George Rogato


*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We
shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~

JohnnyO


Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors 
who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps 
who will not subscribe to a list that your on.


I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting privileges.


George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread JohnnyO
George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
then you fall under the same category. 

I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
to practice DICTATORSHIP ? 

I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
would look for posts labled Star-OS ! 

Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
of the threads.

I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
vendor on WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 
 *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
 We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~
 
 JohnnyO

Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors 
who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps

who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
privileges.


George

-- 
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] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Brad Belton
George, who wedged your panties in a wad this morning?  Have you nothing
better to do than to pick a fight with JohnnyO?

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JohnnyO
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:07 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
then you fall under the same category. 

I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
to practice DICTATORSHIP ? 

I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
would look for posts labled Star-OS ! 

Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
of the threads.

I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
vendor on WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 
 *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
 We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~
 
 JohnnyO

Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors 
who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps

who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
privileges.


George

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists

Calm down kids!!

First of all to JohnnyO - you need to spend a lot more time practicing 
some self-control.  Instead of digging into Lonnie, why not just make a 
request to change the name of the thread.  FWIW, Lonnie did NOT hijack 
this thread - others who were testing WAR boards out brought up their 
experiences with it and testing and Lonnie responded.  That is entirely 
appropriate.  There would not be a response like George's if you didn't 
have a history of pissing people off on this and other lists.  What 
George said is true - there are companies and other WISPs that won't 
subscribe to a list of you are on it.  I'm not going to go into details 
here, but you are welcome to hit me up offlist if you want a 
breakdown.   Also it is not George's responsibility to manage posts and 
subject lines, so it is not fair to dig into him about list management.


Second, to George.  I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum on the 
lists, but I think it would have been more appropriate to respond to 
JohnnyO offlist.  I don't think this was a situation of bigotry, just a 
slightly misunderstood bit of joking around between a couple of people 
who are a little bit sensitive toward ribbing coming from each other.  
Not a big deal at all.


Finally, to everyone...

I am very happy to see that we have built up a nice community on the 
WISPA lists, and I  hope we continue to build that sense of community.  
I am all for a little bit of spice and it is good to see some 
legitimate, real world experience and testing get exchanged between the 
members.  Of all the lists I'm on, this is now the most useful one to me 
by FAR, and that is not something that happened overnight.  It has taken 
some time and unfortunately we do still have to try to put people in 
their place when things get a little too out of hand, but overall I 
think that we have done a very good job of maintaining the balance 
between total control and anarchy. 


Peace out,

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


JohnnyO wrote:

George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
then you fall under the same category. 


I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
to practice DICTATORSHIP ? 


I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
would look for posts labled Star-OS ! 


Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
of the threads.

I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
vendor on WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  
*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~


JohnnyO



Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors 
who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps


who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
privileges.


George

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread Cliff Leboeuf
Can I have an AMEN! Woo Hoo!


On 8/17/06 2:03 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Calm down kids!!
 
 First of all to JohnnyO - you need to spend a lot more time practicing
 some self-control.  Instead of digging into Lonnie, why not just make a
 request to change the name of the thread.  FWIW, Lonnie did NOT hijack
 this thread - others who were testing WAR boards out brought up their
 experiences with it and testing and Lonnie responded.  That is entirely
 appropriate.  There would not be a response like George's if you didn't
 have a history of pissing people off on this and other lists.  What
 George said is true - there are companies and other WISPs that won't
 subscribe to a list of you are on it.  I'm not going to go into details
 here, but you are welcome to hit me up offlist if you want a
 breakdown.   Also it is not George's responsibility to manage posts and
 subject lines, so it is not fair to dig into him about list management.
 
 Second, to George.  I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum on the
 lists, but I think it would have been more appropriate to respond to
 JohnnyO offlist.  I don't think this was a situation of bigotry, just a
 slightly misunderstood bit of joking around between a couple of people
 who are a little bit sensitive toward ribbing coming from each other.
 Not a big deal at all.
 
 Finally, to everyone...
 
 I am very happy to see that we have built up a nice community on the
 WISPA lists, and I  hope we continue to build that sense of community.
 I am all for a little bit of spice and it is good to see some
 legitimate, real world experience and testing get exchanged between the
 members.  Of all the lists I'm on, this is now the most useful one to me
 by FAR, and that is not something that happened overnight.  It has taken
 some time and unfortunately we do still have to try to put people in
 their place when things get a little too out of hand, but overall I
 think that we have done a very good job of maintaining the balance
 between total control and anarchy.
 
 Peace out,
 
 Matt Larsen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 JohnnyO wrote:
 George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
 then you fall under the same category.
 
 I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
 ? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
 opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
 to practice DICTATORSHIP ?
 
 I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
 crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
 would look for posts labled Star-OS !
 
 Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
 of the threads.
 
 I do have an opinion and am a paying member.
 
 Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
 bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.
 
 I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
 continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
 Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
 or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
 vendor on WISPA.
 
 JohnnyO
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
 
 
   
 *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products.
 We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~
 
 JohnnyO
 
 
 Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
 Bigotry.
 
 On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.
 
 
 We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors
 who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps
 
 who will not subscribe to a list that your on.
 
 I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
 privileges.
 
 
 George
 
   

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread George Rogato

Brad,
Fact is we have had numerous vendors not want to join or have anything 
to do with wispa specifically because of JohnnyO's postings.
We have had numerous wisps say they didn't want to join or have anything 
to do with wispa because of JohnnyO's postings.


WISPA will not be an uncomfortable place for some, it will be a list 
that you can make informative posts without fear of getting slammed.


I have lots better to do than mess with Johnny but I also have a 
responsibility to set the rules.


Do not attack your fellow wisp.

George

Brad Belton wrote:

George, who wedged your panties in a wad this morning?  Have you nothing
better to do than to pick a fight with JohnnyO?

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JohnnyO
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:07 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
then you fall under the same category. 


I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
to practice DICTATORSHIP ? 


I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
would look for posts labled Star-OS ! 


Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
of the threads.

I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
vendor on WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~


JohnnyO


Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are vendors 
who have said they will not contribute financially and others were wisps


who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
privileges.


George




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-17 Thread John Scrivner
Thank you Matt. I am glad you took this one. I would have said the exact 
same things you did if I was that good with words. I absolutely agree 
with everything you said here.

:-)
Scriv



Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


Calm down kids!!

First of all to JohnnyO - you need to spend a lot more time practicing 
some self-control.  Instead of digging into Lonnie, why not just make 
a request to change the name of the thread.  FWIW, Lonnie did NOT 
hijack this thread - others who were testing WAR boards out brought up 
their experiences with it and testing and Lonnie responded.  That is 
entirely appropriate.  There would not be a response like George's if 
you didn't have a history of pissing people off on this and other 
lists.  What George said is true - there are companies and other WISPs 
that won't subscribe to a list of you are on it.  I'm not going to go 
into details here, but you are welcome to hit me up offlist if you 
want a breakdown.   Also it is not George's responsibility to manage 
posts and subject lines, so it is not fair to dig into him about list 
management.


Second, to George.  I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum on 
the lists, but I think it would have been more appropriate to respond 
to JohnnyO offlist.  I don't think this was a situation of bigotry, 
just a slightly misunderstood bit of joking around between a couple of 
people who are a little bit sensitive toward ribbing coming from each 
other.  Not a big deal at all.


Finally, to everyone...

I am very happy to see that we have built up a nice community on the 
WISPA lists, and I  hope we continue to build that sense of 
community.  I am all for a little bit of spice and it is good to see 
some legitimate, real world experience and testing get exchanged 
between the members.  Of all the lists I'm on, this is now the most 
useful one to me by FAR, and that is not something that happened 
overnight.  It has taken some time and unfortunately we do still have 
to try to put people in their place when things get a little too out 
of hand, but overall I think that we have done a very good job of 
maintaining the balance between total control and anarchy.

Peace out,

Matt Larsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


JohnnyO wrote:


George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
then you fall under the same category.
I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
to practice DICTATORSHIP ?
I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
would look for posts labled Star-OS !
Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
of the threads.

I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
vendor on WISPA.

JohnnyO

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


 

*Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~


JohnnyO




Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
Bigotry.

On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are 
vendors who have said they will not contribute financially and others 
were wisps


who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
privileges.


George

  




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 [THREAD CLOSED]

2006-08-17 Thread Rick Harnish
Better late than never!  This Thread is closed.  Start a new thread if you
want to discuss either platforms further and keep it civil. Offline
discussions with the various parties of this thread have taken place and
concerns have been voiced.

Rick Harnish
President
Supernova Technologies, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Thank you Matt. I am glad you took this one. I would have said the exact 
same things you did if I was that good with words. I absolutely agree 
with everything you said here.
:-)
Scriv



Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

 Calm down kids!!

 First of all to JohnnyO - you need to spend a lot more time practicing 
 some self-control.  Instead of digging into Lonnie, why not just make 
 a request to change the name of the thread.  FWIW, Lonnie did NOT 
 hijack this thread - others who were testing WAR boards out brought up 
 their experiences with it and testing and Lonnie responded.  That is 
 entirely appropriate.  There would not be a response like George's if 
 you didn't have a history of pissing people off on this and other 
 lists.  What George said is true - there are companies and other WISPs 
 that won't subscribe to a list of you are on it.  I'm not going to go 
 into details here, but you are welcome to hit me up offlist if you 
 want a breakdown.   Also it is not George's responsibility to manage 
 posts and subject lines, so it is not fair to dig into him about list 
 management.

 Second, to George.  I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum on 
 the lists, but I think it would have been more appropriate to respond 
 to JohnnyO offlist.  I don't think this was a situation of bigotry, 
 just a slightly misunderstood bit of joking around between a couple of 
 people who are a little bit sensitive toward ribbing coming from each 
 other.  Not a big deal at all.

 Finally, to everyone...

 I am very happy to see that we have built up a nice community on the 
 WISPA lists, and I  hope we continue to build that sense of 
 community.  I am all for a little bit of spice and it is good to see 
 some legitimate, real world experience and testing get exchanged 
 between the members.  Of all the lists I'm on, this is now the most 
 useful one to me by FAR, and that is not something that happened 
 overnight.  It has taken some time and unfortunately we do still have 
 to try to put people in their place when things get a little too out 
 of hand, but overall I think that we have done a very good job of 
 maintaining the balance between total control and anarchy.
 Peace out,

 Matt Larsen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 JohnnyO wrote:

 George - can you tell me if calling me a bigot is a slam ? IF it is,
 then you fall under the same category.
 I guess it's ok for a vendor to hijack threads to promote his own stuff
 ? The thread was about the Routerboard 532As and Mikrotik. This is my
 opinion and I will post my opinions. I guess you think it's ok for you
 to practice DICTATORSHIP ?
 I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS
 crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I
 would look for posts labled Star-OS !
 Maybe you should put more time into managing the posts and subject lines
 of the threads.

 I do have an opinion and am a paying member.

 Which vendors are you talking about ? Which WISPs ? Don't throw out
 bullcrap unless you're willing to provide the proof.

 I banter/kid/joke with the Canadians and have for several years and will
 continue to do so. I have slammed vendors on Part-15s lists and also
 Judd's list who have proved to me to be substandard in customer service
 or product quality, but I can't recall the last time I slammed a
 vendor on WISPA.

 JohnnyO

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of George Rogato
 Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


  

 *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. 
 We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~

 JohnnyO
 


 Johnny.. Where do you come from that you think it is ok to practice
 Bigotry.

 On this list, it is not ok to be a bigot.


 We have had numerous people complain about your slams. Some are 
 vendors who have said they will not contribute financially and others 
 were wisps

 who will not subscribe to a list that your on.

 I am going to ask the board to consider removing your posting
 privileges.


 George

   


-- 
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

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-15 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a 
public announcement.
If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote 
the feature.

Thanks.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2



It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Lonnie,

I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

V3 has support for a fully transparent
 client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP 
 system.


That is good news!

 License Fee after 1 year.

The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

 We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
 device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused
between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition 
of

VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU
above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU 
allowed

or possibly for passing MPLS).

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Tom DeReggi

Gino,

That is exciting news getting the Full 35 mbps on the WAR/STAR board.  I 
guess it shows that the 533Mhz processor is the key to speed. The price is 
right to.


The only thing is, we need to be able to pass full 1500 MTU for our 
backhauls, and we use VLAN. The older WRAP/STAROS shrinks MTU size to 
support VLAN. This prevented its use for our backhauls.  The newer StarOS V3 
software, doesn't support the larger packets yet, does it?


---802.1d bridging for ethernet and wireless ap, and layer-3 proxy arp 
bridging for wireless clients.


That sounded like interesting feature on V3 software.

WRAP V3 $70 /year.

I hope that means one year of updates, and not that it expires at the end 
of the year and stops passing traffic. Do you know for sure?


How is the availabilty regularly on the WAR boards?

Has anyone tried flashing Mikrotik on a WAR board?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Gino A. Villarini

To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


Well Tom,

We are in the same situation as you, testing backhaul replacements.  Our 
Network backhauls are made of : Spectras , Gemini, Trango Atlas, Motorola BH 
units and Proxim MP11a.  So we started looking for a 802.11a based unit, 
config channels of 5,10,20 and 40 mhz, support for bridging and basic stuff 
needed for backhauls no fancy stuff.  The are some products available like 
the Trango Atlas, Solectek among others but we decided to test Mikrotik 
RB500 units, we saw the same results as you did, not very amazed. But, last 
week I decided to test out StarOS WAR plataform. and let me tell you:


6 mile link with 533 mhz WAR Board with 1 CM9 card each on both sides 23 db 
flat panel ( -66 on both ends ) One End connected to a Mikrotik 2.8 ghz 
Router , my laptop at the other end. WAR board set on bridge mode, 
connection tracking disabled.


First of all, latency :

1-   64 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 1ms
2-   1500 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 2 - 3 ms

Nice, thoughput :

20 mhz channel:

TCP : 35 Mbps
UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the opposite )

40 mhz channel:

TCP : 45 Mbps
UDP: 72 Mbps

For Paul:

20 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 5 Mbps
40 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 6 Mbps



Pretty darn exiting results! I just need to iron out a vlan issue with 
Lonnie.. and I would make this units our defacto Back hauls


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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in one 
board).


test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 - Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 - wired 
to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.

Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.
Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on Mikrotiks.

Test Method 1 (running test to/from Laptops): used about 80% CPU power on 
Mikrotik board to pass the traffic.


Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about 100% CPU power on 
Mikrotik.


However, interesting enough, the results of the speed tests, whichever 
method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.


The results of tests were

Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz channel: 16.6 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously (adding together 
the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7 mbps in the other).

Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz channel: 15.8 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz channel: 19 mbps (10.4 
mbps and 9 mbps)

Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo Mode speed: 18 mbps
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously Turbo Mode 
(adding together the values): 22mbps.


Note: Turbo mode tested in two configurations, (A) the lowest 5.8G channel 
send and highest 5.8G channel for receive, and (B) 5.8Ghz to send and 5.3Ghz 
receive.
Note: All 5.8Ghz test results were at 54 mbps speed modulation, and setting 
it to slower speed/modulation lowered the test speed results.
Note: Test performed with RSSI somewhere between -60 and -68, without 
antennas, but w/ high quality pigtails w/Bulk head N, Pointing N connectors 
to each other.
Note: Re-tried tests with antennas used, to increase RSSI (-50 to -60 db), 
but it did not improve results.

Note: All tests done when in NStreme2 mode, using two cards on each end.
Note: Both boards mounted in Mikrotik Plastic Large Case (sweet cases) and 
using 18V (.8amp) via POE.


One thing that was really odd...  Mikrotik has a value for TX rssi and RX 
rssi. The TX

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread G. villarini
Well Tom It stil wonÂ’t pass vlans as we would like, Lonnie is currently working 
on this.  I hope this getsfixed soon.  The units have a great price and I have 
a great antenna enclosure for them.

Gino-
From: Tom DeReggi[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/14/06 5:10:06 PM
To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
  Gino,

That is exciting news getting the Full 35 mbps on the WAR/STAR board.  I 
guess it shows that the 533Mhz processor is the key to speed. The price is 
right to.

The only thing is, we need to be able to pass full 1500 MTU for our 
backhauls, and we use VLAN. The older WRAP/STAROS shrinks MTU size to 
support VLAN. This prevented its use for our backhauls.  The newer StarOS 
V3 
software, doesn't support the larger packets yet, does it?

---802.1d bridging for ethernet and wireless ap, and layer-3 proxy arp 
bridging for wireless clients.

That sounded like interesting feature on V3 software.

WRAP V3 $70 /year.

I hope that means one year of updates, and not that it expires at the end 
of the year and stops passing traffic. Do you know for sure?

How is the availabilty regularly on the WAR boards?

Has anyone tried flashing Mikrotik on a WAR board?



[Message truncated. Tap Edit-Mark for Download to get remaining portion.]

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Tom DeReggi



Tom, can you confirm if your test RB532's had connection tracking disabled


Yes, connection tracking was disabled.


and cpu set at 330MHz?


Most likely No.  I do not know how to set that, so it is set at default.
Does this overclock the board? Or some other purpose?


There is a company in the UK
that mass produces outdoor grade Mikrotik solutions with 1GHz x86 CPU's so
that the CPU is no longer the bottle neck. We are in the process of tested 
a

few off the shelf x86 boards in outdoor enclosures using 56byte random TCP
data in both directions at the same time on a single CM9 in turbo mode and
have been able to get 37-38Mbps in both directions (about 75Mbps 
aggregate)

which seems to be better than most other more expensive options. These
results don't change if we then use larger packets of 1500bytes.


I made contact with them as well. They have some exciting products. But they 
are pricey compared to the self made systems.  Meaning they are charging for 
the value of the faster solution, not by the cost to make it.  Concern 
buying from them is not as much cost, as availabilty, buying only from one 
source that is out of country.  However, we are still keeping them in mind.


Tom DeReggi


Cheers,

P.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 12 August 2006 06:48
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

If you are interested, here is the real world test results from my
house to the office through a middle repeater, so it involves 4
Atheros radios and three of our WAR4 533 MHz systems.  The middle
repeater has 4 radios, two of which are used in this test.  The end
points are x86 servers, (a 600 MHz P3 and a 2.4 GHz P4  both running
new V3 x86PC) so the test shows available throughput and does not load
the radios with the speed test software.  Our own speed test shows a
bit higher but is in the right ballpark and also uses tcp.


Lonnie

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.250.254
traceroute to 10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.017 ms  0.593 ms  0.536 ms
2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.426 ms  1.519 ms  1.242 ms
3  10.10.226.254 (10.10.226.254)  2.176 ms  2.467 ms  2.256 ms
4  10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254)  3.058 ms  2.852 ms  2.545 ms
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254

Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[  8] local 192.168.250.1 port 4716 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  8]  0.0-10.0 sec  61.6 MBytes  51.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254 -d

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)


Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[ 10] local 192.168.250.1 port 4717 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  9] local 192.168.250.1 port 5001 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 1340
[ 10]  0.0-10.0 sec  25.9 MBytes  21.7 Mbits/sec
[  9]  0.0-10.0 sec  42.6 MBytes  35.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.250.254 he1pm3 -rx
rx rate: 5598 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 

Next week I will upgrade our server 100 km away to V3 for x86PC and
report the results for the following system that goes through 4
repeaters (radio in and radio out mid point) and a unit at each end,
so 10 radios are involved.  The remote server does not have iperf but
I have shown the results of our own speedtest which the first test
shows is pretty close to what iperf will show.

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.031 ms  0.683 ms  0.548 ms
2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.701 ms  1.253 ms  1.895 ms
3  10.10.227.254 (10.10.227.254)  2.737 ms  2.982 ms  2.267 ms
4  10.10.12.4 (10.10.12.4)  3.649 ms  2.653 ms  2.51 ms
5  10.10.47.253 (10.10.47.253)  4.644 ms  3.539 ms  3.661 ms
6  10.10.51.254 (10.10.51.254)  5.651 ms  4.832 ms  5.519 ms
7  10.14.99.254 (10.14.99.254)  7.248 ms  5.907 ms  5.803 ms
8  10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1)  7.314 ms  6.75 ms  5.856 ms
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate: 2306 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 



On 8/11/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in

one

board).

test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 - Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 -

wired

to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.
Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

Test software 1

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

Tom,

We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

We no longer include proxy arp support in V3.  It was fine for the
customer end but too many people misused it for a middle bridge and
that gave nothing but trouble.  V3 has support for a fully transparent
client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
system.

The license fee allows 1 year of free updates at which time it will
require a $10 fee for another year.  The license will never expire,
just the ability to update the firmware.  If you buy a WAR board the
license is included in the board price and the update privilege never
expires.  The expiry is just for x86 firmware.

I can handle orders under 3,000 pieces from stock and any quantity you
wish on a 6 to 8 week pre-order basis.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Gino,

That is exciting news getting the Full 35 mbps on the WAR/STAR board.  I
guess it shows that the 533Mhz processor is the key to speed. The price is
right to.

The only thing is, we need to be able to pass full 1500 MTU for our
backhauls, and we use VLAN. The older WRAP/STAROS shrinks MTU size to
support VLAN. This prevented its use for our backhauls.  The newer StarOS V3
software, doesn't support the larger packets yet, does it?

---802.1d bridging for ethernet and wireless ap, and layer-3 proxy arp
bridging for wireless clients.

That sounded like interesting feature on V3 software.

WRAP V3 $70 /year.

I hope that means one year of updates, and not that it expires at the end
of the year and stops passing traffic. Do you know for sure?

How is the availabilty regularly on the WAR boards?

Has anyone tried flashing Mikrotik on a WAR board?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Gino A. Villarini
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


Well Tom,

We are in the same situation as you, testing backhaul replacements.  Our
Network backhauls are made of : Spectras , Gemini, Trango Atlas, Motorola BH
units and Proxim MP11a.  So we started looking for a 802.11a based unit,
config channels of 5,10,20 and 40 mhz, support for bridging and basic stuff
needed for backhauls no fancy stuff.  The are some products available like
the Trango Atlas, Solectek among others but we decided to test Mikrotik
RB500 units, we saw the same results as you did, not very amazed. But, last
week I decided to test out StarOS WAR plataform. and let me tell you:

6 mile link with 533 mhz WAR Board with 1 CM9 card each on both sides 23 db
flat panel ( -66 on both ends ) One End connected to a Mikrotik 2.8 ghz
Router , my laptop at the other end. WAR board set on bridge mode,
connection tracking disabled.

First of all, latency :

1-   64 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 1ms
2-   1500 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 2 - 3 ms

Nice, thoughput :

20 mhz channel:

TCP : 35 Mbps
UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the opposite )

40 mhz channel:

TCP : 45 Mbps
UDP: 72 Mbps

For Paul:

20 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 5 Mbps
40 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 6 Mbps



Pretty darn exiting results! I just need to iron out a vlan issue with
Lonnie.. and I would make this units our defacto Back hauls

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in one
board).

test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 - Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 - wired
to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.
Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.
Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on Mikrotiks.

Test Method 1 (running test to/from Laptops): used about 80% CPU power on
Mikrotik board to pass the traffic.

Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about 100% CPU power on
Mikrotik.

However, interesting enough, the results of the speed tests, whichever
method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.

The results of tests were

Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz channel: 16.6 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously (adding together
the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7 mbps in the other).
Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz channel: 15.8 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz channel: 19 mbps (10.4
mbps and 9 mbps)
Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo Mode speed: 18 mbps
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously Turbo Mode
(adding together

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Tom DeReggi

Lonnie,

I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.


V3 has support for a fully transparent
client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system.


That is good news!


License Fee after 1 year.


The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.


We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.


Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused 
between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the 
Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of 
VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU 
above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed 
or possibly for passing MPLS).


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2



Tom,

We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

We no longer include proxy arp support in V3.  It was fine for the
customer end but too many people misused it for a middle bridge and
that gave nothing but trouble.  V3 has support for a fully transparent
client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
system.

The license fee allows 1 year of free updates at which time it will
require a $10 fee for another year.  The license will never expire,
just the ability to update the firmware.  If you buy a WAR board the
license is included in the board price and the update privilege never
expires.  The expiry is just for x86 firmware.

I can handle orders under 3,000 pieces from stock and any quantity you
wish on a 6 to 8 week pre-order basis.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Gino,

That is exciting news getting the Full 35 mbps on the WAR/STAR board.  I
guess it shows that the 533Mhz processor is the key to speed. The price 
is

right to.

The only thing is, we need to be able to pass full 1500 MTU for our
backhauls, and we use VLAN. The older WRAP/STAROS shrinks MTU size to
support VLAN. This prevented its use for our backhauls.  The newer StarOS 
V3

software, doesn't support the larger packets yet, does it?

---802.1d bridging for ethernet and wireless ap, and layer-3 proxy arp
bridging for wireless clients.

That sounded like interesting feature on V3 software.

WRAP V3 $70 /year.

I hope that means one year of updates, and not that it expires at the 
end

of the year and stops passing traffic. Do you know for sure?

How is the availabilty regularly on the WAR boards?

Has anyone tried flashing Mikrotik on a WAR board?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Gino A. Villarini
To: 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2


Well Tom,

We are in the same situation as you, testing backhaul replacements.  Our
Network backhauls are made of : Spectras , Gemini, Trango Atlas, Motorola 
BH

units and Proxim MP11a.  So we started looking for a 802.11a based unit,
config channels of 5,10,20 and 40 mhz, support for bridging and basic 
stuff
needed for backhauls no fancy stuff.  The are some products available 
like

the Trango Atlas, Solectek among others but we decided to test Mikrotik
RB500 units, we saw the same results as you did, not very amazed. But, 
last

week I decided to test out StarOS WAR plataform. and let me tell you:

6 mile link with 533 mhz WAR Board with 1 CM9 card each on both sides 23 
db

flat panel ( -66 on both ends ) One End connected to a Mikrotik 2.8 ghz
Router , my laptop at the other end. WAR board set on bridge mode,
connection tracking disabled.

First of all, latency :

1-   64 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 1ms
2-   1500 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 2 - 3 ms

Nice, thoughput :

20 mhz channel:

TCP : 35 Mbps
UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the opposite )

40 mhz channel:

TCP : 45 Mbps
UDP: 72 Mbps

For Paul:

20 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 5 Mbps
40 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte packets : 6 Mbps



Pretty darn exiting results! I just need to iron out a vlan issue with
Lonnie.. and I would make this units our defacto Back hauls

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



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in 
one

board).

test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9

Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Lonnie,

I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

V3 has support for a fully transparent
 client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system.

That is good news!

 License Fee after 1 year.

The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

 We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
 device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused
between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of
VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU
above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed
or possibly for passing MPLS).

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Eric Merkel

On 8/14/06, Lonnie Nunweiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Tom,

We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

We no longer include proxy arp support in V3.  It was fine for the
customer end but too many people misused it for a middle bridge and
that gave nothing but trouble.  V3 has support for a fully transparent
client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP
system.



Lonnie,

We've been using staros for a while and just began using the WAR
boards recently but I didn't realize this behaviour had changed. We
put the WAR boards between two Cisco routers and we had to use VDS to
get true bridging working between them.

If there's another way to do it I'd like to know so to reduce the
overhead of VDS. What exactly is a an appropriately configured V3
AP? We've always just bridged the ethernet to the wpci on both sides
of the link.

-Eric
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Gino A. Villarini
So.. Lonnie, got a timeframe for this ?

thanks

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 Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

 V3 has support for a fully transparent
  client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system.

 That is good news!

  License Fee after 1 year.

 The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

  We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
  device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

 Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused
 between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
 Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition
of
 VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU
 above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
allowed
 or possibly for passing MPLS).

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-14 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

It's work in progress.  I have found can't estimate software
development timelines very well and people get upset when I am wrong,
so I quit making predictions a long time ago.  What I can say is we
are actively working on it and it will happen as soon as we can.  Also
I can say to take the past as a predictor that it will happen.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So.. Lonnie, got a timeframe for this ?

thanks

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 Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people
can go and do whatever they want.  I can imagine people doing some
vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each
one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload.

Lonnie

On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Lonnie,

 I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response.

 V3 has support for a fully transparent
  client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system.

 That is good news!

  License Fee after 1 year.

 The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable.

  We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every
  device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size.

 Great.  To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused
 between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the
 Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition
of
 VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU
 above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU
allowed
 or possibly for passing MPLS).

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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

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

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

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

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


RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-13 Thread Paul Hendry








Hi Gino,



Thanks for the results. As expected, small
packets seriously damages the available throughput. Do you know if it also
hammers the throughput on your other backhaul links where you use the Spectra
or Atlas? I know a few people have asked Lonnie to incorporate some form of
packet aggregator into StarOS and I even believe one person has offered a
possible solution but no sign of a response which is a shame as the WAR
platform is a very promising piece of kit.



Cheers,



P.











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: 12 August 2006 19:17
To: 'WISPA
 General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard
532 and NStreme2





Well Tom,



We are in the same situation as you,
testing backhaul replacements. Our Network backhauls are made of :
Spectras , Gemini, Trango Atlas, Motorola BH units and Proxim MP11a. So
we started looking for a 802.11a based unit, config channels of 5,10,20 and 40
mhz, support for bridging and basic stuff needed for backhauls no fancy stuff.
The are some products available like the Trango Atlas, Solectek among
others but we decided to test Mikrotik RB500 units, we saw the same results as
you did, not very amazed. But, last week I decided to test out StarOS WAR
plataform and let me tell you:



6 mile link with 533 mhz WAR Board with 1
CM9 card each on both sides 23 db flat panel ( -66 on both ends ) One End
connected to a Mikrotik 2.8 ghz Router , my laptop at the other end WAR
board set on bridge mode, connection tracking disabled.



First of all, latency :



1- 64 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 1ms

2- 1500 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 2  3
ms



Nice, thoughput :



20 mhz channel:



TCP : 35 Mbps

UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the
opposite )



40 mhz channel:



TCP : 45 Mbps

UDP: 72 Mbps 



For Paul:



20 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte
packets : 5 Mbps

40 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte
packets : 6 Mbps







Pretty darn exiting results! I just need
to iron out a vlan issue with Lonnie.. and I would make this units our defacto
Back hauls





Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Aeronet
Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel
787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:18
PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: [WISPA] Routerboard 532
and NStreme2







Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2
(two MPCI cards in one board).











test environment...











AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 -
Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 - wired to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.





Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.











Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28











Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.





Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on
Mikrotiks.











TestMethod 1 (running test
to/fromLaptops): used about 80% CPU power on Mikrotik board to pass the
traffic.











Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about
100% CPU power on Mikrotik.











However, interesting enough, the results of the speed
tests, whichever method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.











The results of tests were











Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz
channel: 16.6 mbps.





Maximum speed transferable in both direction
simultaneously (addingtogether the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7
mbps in the other).





Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz
channel: 15.8 mbps.





Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz
channel: 19 mbps (10.4 mbps and 9 mbps)





Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo
Mode speed: 18 mbps





Maximum speed transferable in both
directionsimultaneously Turbo Mode (addingtogether the values):
22mbps.











Note: Turbo mode tested in two configurations, (A)
the lowest 5.8G channel send and highest 5.8G channel for receive, and(B)
5.8Ghz to send and 5.3Ghz receive.





Note: All 5.8Ghz test resultswere at54
mbps speed modulation, and setting it to slower speed/modulation lowered the
test speed results.





Note: Test performed with RSSI somewhere between -60
and-68, without antennas, but w/ high quality pigtails w/Bulk head N,
Pointing N connectors to each other.





Note:Re-tried tests with antennas used, to increase
RSSI (-50 to -60 db), but itdid not improve results.





Note: All tests done when in NStreme2 mode, using
twocards on each end. 





Note: Both boards mounted in Mikrotik Plastic Large
Case (sweet cases) and using 18V (.8amp) via POE.











One thing that was really odd...Mikrotik
has a value for TX rssi and RXrssi. The TXrssi was the exact RX
rssi acheivedat the otehr radio in all cases in any slot, in any
configuration. 





However,the CM9 inthe TOP Slot of
the532board consistently showed an average of 10 db worse TX RSSI.
(sometimes around -75 db). Swapping TX CM9s did not help. TX from

RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-12 Thread Paul Hendry
Hi Lonnie,

Would be great to see your test results using smaller packet sizes of
100bytes which seems to be around the average packet size for the majority
of the traffic on my network. This test always seems to have a massive
impact on the available throughput and is currently the reason why we use
StarOS for high speed dedicated private lines but Mikrotik w/nstreme for
anything shared.

Tom, can you confirm if your test RB532's had connection tracking disabled
and cpu set at 330MHz? It has been said a few times that N/Streme2 uses too
much CPU for the RB532 however I have seen much better results than your
tests show using N/Streme and a single CM9. There is a company in the UK
that mass produces outdoor grade Mikrotik solutions with 1GHz x86 CPU's so
that the CPU is no longer the bottle neck. We are in the process of tested a
few off the shelf x86 boards in outdoor enclosures using 56byte random TCP
data in both directions at the same time on a single CM9 in turbo mode and
have been able to get 37-38Mbps in both directions (about 75Mbps aggregate)
which seems to be better than most other more expensive options. These
results don't change if we then use larger packets of 1500bytes.

Cheers,

P.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: 12 August 2006 06:48
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

If you are interested, here is the real world test results from my
house to the office through a middle repeater, so it involves 4
Atheros radios and three of our WAR4 533 MHz systems.  The middle
repeater has 4 radios, two of which are used in this test.  The end
points are x86 servers, (a 600 MHz P3 and a 2.4 GHz P4  both running
new V3 x86PC) so the test shows available throughput and does not load
the radios with the speed test software.  Our own speed test shows a
bit higher but is in the right ballpark and also uses tcp.


Lonnie

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.250.254
traceroute to 10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.017 ms  0.593 ms  0.536 ms
 2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.426 ms  1.519 ms  1.242 ms
 3  10.10.226.254 (10.10.226.254)  2.176 ms  2.467 ms  2.256 ms
 4  10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254)  3.058 ms  2.852 ms  2.545 ms
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254

Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[  8] local 192.168.250.1 port 4716 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  8]  0.0-10.0 sec  61.6 MBytes  51.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254 -d

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)


Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[ 10] local 192.168.250.1 port 4717 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  9] local 192.168.250.1 port 5001 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 1340
[ 10]  0.0-10.0 sec  25.9 MBytes  21.7 Mbits/sec
[  9]  0.0-10.0 sec  42.6 MBytes  35.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.250.254 he1pm3 -rx
rx rate: 5598 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 

Next week I will upgrade our server 100 km away to V3 for x86PC and
report the results for the following system that goes through 4
repeaters (radio in and radio out mid point) and a unit at each end,
so 10 radios are involved.  The remote server does not have iperf but
I have shown the results of our own speedtest which the first test
shows is pretty close to what iperf will show.

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.031 ms  0.683 ms  0.548 ms
 2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.701 ms  1.253 ms  1.895 ms
 3  10.10.227.254 (10.10.227.254)  2.737 ms  2.982 ms  2.267 ms
 4  10.10.12.4 (10.10.12.4)  3.649 ms  2.653 ms  2.51 ms
 5  10.10.47.253 (10.10.47.253)  4.644 ms  3.539 ms  3.661 ms
 6  10.10.51.254 (10.10.51.254)  5.651 ms  4.832 ms  5.519 ms
 7  10.14.99.254 (10.14.99.254)  7.248 ms  5.907 ms  5.803 ms
 8  10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1)  7.314 ms  6.75 ms  5.856 ms
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate: 2306 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 



On 8/11/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in
one
 board).

 test environment...

 AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 - Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 -
wired
 to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.
 Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

 Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

 Test software 1

RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-12 Thread Gino A. Villarini








Well Tom,



We are in the same situation as you,
testing backhaul replacements. Our Network backhauls are made of : Spectras
, Gemini, Trango Atlas, Motorola BH units and Proxim MP11a. So we started
looking for a 802.11a based unit, config channels of 5,10,20 and 40 mhz,
support for bridging and basic stuff needed for backhauls no fancy stuff. The
are some products available like the Trango Atlas, Solectek among others but we
decided to test Mikrotik RB500 units, we saw the same results as you did, not
very amazed. But, last week I decided to test out StarOS WAR plataform
and let me tell you:



6 mile link with 533 mhz WAR Board with 1 CM9
card each on both sides 23 db flat panel ( -66 on both ends ) One End connected
to a Mikrotik 2.8 ghz Router , my laptop at the other end WAR board set
on bridge mode, connection tracking disabled.



First of all, latency :



1- 64 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 1ms

2- 1500 byte ping from my laptop to the Mikrotik router : 2  3 ms



Nice, thoughput :



20 mhz channel:



TCP : 35 Mbps

UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the
opposite )



40 mhz channel:



TCP : 45 Mbps

UDP: 72 Mbps 



For Paul:



20 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte
packets : 5 Mbps

40 mhz chanel UDP test with 100 byte
packets : 6 Mbps







Pretty darn exiting results! I just need
to iron out a vlan issue with Lonnie.. and I would make this units our defacto
Back hauls





Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Aeronet
Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel
787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 8:18
PM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: [WISPA] Routerboard 532
and NStreme2







Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2
(two MPCI cards in one board).











test environment...











AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 -
Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 - wired to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.





Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.











Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28











Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.





Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on
Mikrotiks.











TestMethod 1 (running test to/fromLaptops):
used about 80% CPU power on Mikrotik board to pass the traffic.











Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about
100% CPU power on Mikrotik.











However, interesting enough, the results of the speed
tests, whichever method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.











The results of tests were











Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz
channel: 16.6 mbps.





Maximum speed transferable in both direction
simultaneously (addingtogether the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7 mbps
in the other).





Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz
channel: 15.8 mbps.





Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz
channel: 19 mbps (10.4 mbps and 9 mbps)





Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo
Mode speed: 18 mbps





Maximum speed transferable in both
directionsimultaneously Turbo Mode (addingtogether the values):
22mbps.











Note: Turbo mode tested in two configurations, (A)
the lowest 5.8G channel send and highest 5.8G channel for receive, and(B)
5.8Ghz to send and 5.3Ghz receive.





Note: All 5.8Ghz test resultswere at54
mbps speed modulation, and setting it to slower speed/modulation lowered the
test speed results.





Note: Test performed with RSSI somewhere between -60
and-68, without antennas, but w/ high quality pigtails w/Bulk head N,
Pointing N connectors to each other.





Note:Re-tried tests with antennas used, to
increase RSSI (-50 to -60 db), but itdid not improve results.





Note: All tests done when in NStreme2 mode, using
twocards on each end. 





Note: Both boards mounted in Mikrotik Plastic Large
Case (sweet cases) and using 18V (.8amp) via POE.











One thing that was really odd...Mikrotik
has a value for TX rssi and RXrssi. The TXrssi was the exact RX
rssi acheivedat the otehr radio in all cases in any slot, in any
configuration. 





However,the CM9 inthe TOP Slot of
the532board consistently showed an average of 10 db worse TX RSSI.
(sometimes around -75 db). Swapping TX CM9s did not help. TX from the top
slot oneither of the Mikrotik CPEs showed the same results.The
only way I was able to make the TX rssis the same on both CPEs simultaneously
was to set the BOTTOM port/CM9 on each Mikrotik to be the TX radio. This
indicated that the 532 board possibly might have a powerproblem to the
top slot. In this configuration, at 54mbps, RSSI was about -65TX
and RX on bothCPEs.











My conclusion of this experimentwas that the
ideal configuration for a MIkrotik 532 board is with10Mhz channels in
NStreme2 mode.





Because Spectrum efficiency is maximized, Interference
avoidance maximized, Cost low, and very little aggregate speed
benefitacheived by using the larger channel sizes.




RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-12 Thread Charles Wu
Title: Message




20 mhz 
channel:

TCP : 35 
Mbps
UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, 
usually is the opposite )


Gino,

Keep 
in mind -- if you check the Atheros "advanced feature" checkbox -- you are 
turning on "super-a/g" functionality
Going 
back to your testing methodology (which you haven't elaborated on), the Lempel 
Ziv compression within super-a/g could be the reason why you're getting "screwy" 
TCP vs. UDP results

-Charles
---WiNOG 
Wireless RoadshowsComing to a City Near Youhttp://www.winog.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] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-12 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Title: Message








Charles:



For test we are using the Mikrotik BW test
tool client on the PC, and the built in the Router..



I completely understand your point, but
why on 40 mhz channel size, its 45 mbps TCP and 72 mbps UDP ?





Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Aeronet
Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel
787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Charles Wu
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006
3:22 PM
To: 'WISPA
 General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard
532 and NStreme2







20 mhz channel:



TCP : 35 Mbps

UDP: 28 Mbps ( weird, usually is the
opposite )













Gino,











Keep in mind -- if you check the Atheros
advanced feature checkbox -- you are turning on
super-a/g functionality





Going back to your testing methodology
(which you haven't elaborated on), the Lempel Ziv compression within super-a/g
could be the reason why you're getting screwy TCP vs. UDP results











-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.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] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2

2006-08-11 Thread Lonnie Nunweiler

If you are interested, here is the real world test results from my
house to the office through a middle repeater, so it involves 4
Atheros radios and three of our WAR4 533 MHz systems.  The middle
repeater has 4 radios, two of which are used in this test.  The end
points are x86 servers, (a 600 MHz P3 and a 2.4 GHz P4  both running
new V3 x86PC) so the test shows available throughput and does not load
the radios with the speed test software.  Our own speed test shows a
bit higher but is in the right ballpark and also uses tcp.


Lonnie

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.250.254
traceroute to 10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.017 ms  0.593 ms  0.536 ms
2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.426 ms  1.519 ms  1.242 ms
3  10.10.226.254 (10.10.226.254)  2.176 ms  2.467 ms  2.256 ms
4  10.10.250.254 (10.10.250.254)  3.058 ms  2.852 ms  2.545 ms
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254

Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[  8] local 192.168.250.1 port 4716 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  8]  0.0-10.0 sec  61.6 MBytes  51.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~  iperf -c 10.10.250.254 -d

Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)


Client connecting to 10.10.250.254, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)

[ 10] local 192.168.250.1 port 4717 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 5001
[  9] local 192.168.250.1 port 5001 connected with 10.10.250.254 port 1340
[ 10]  0.0-10.0 sec  25.9 MBytes  21.7 Mbits/sec
[  9]  0.0-10.0 sec  42.6 MBytes  35.6 Mbits/sec
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.250.254 he1pm3 -rx
rx rate: 5598 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 

Next week I will upgrade our server 100 km away to V3 for x86PC and
report the results for the following system that goes through 4
repeaters (radio in and radio out mid point) and a unit at each end,
so 10 radios are involved.  The remote server does not have iperf but
I have shown the results of our own speedtest which the first test
shows is pretty close to what iperf will show.

war-platform ~  traceroute 10.10.29.1
traceroute to 10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1  192.168.250.10 (192.168.250.10)  1.031 ms  0.683 ms  0.548 ms
2  10.10.48.254 (10.10.48.254)  1.701 ms  1.253 ms  1.895 ms
3  10.10.227.254 (10.10.227.254)  2.737 ms  2.982 ms  2.267 ms
4  10.10.12.4 (10.10.12.4)  3.649 ms  2.653 ms  2.51 ms
5  10.10.47.253 (10.10.47.253)  4.644 ms  3.539 ms  3.661 ms
6  10.10.51.254 (10.10.51.254)  5.651 ms  4.832 ms  5.519 ms
7  10.14.99.254 (10.14.99.254)  7.248 ms  5.907 ms  5.803 ms
8  10.10.29.1 (10.10.29.1)  7.314 ms  6.75 ms  5.856 ms
war-platform ~ 
war-platform ~  starutil 10.10.29.1 password -rx
rx rate: 2306 KB/sec  (Press Ctrl-C to exit)
war-platform ~ 



On 8/11/06, Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Task: Test Max Speed doable using Mikrotik NStreme 2 (two MPCI cards in one
board).

test environment...

AMD 3Ghz Laptop wired - Mikrotik 532 w/ CM9 - Mikrotik 532 w/CM9 - wired
to HP PIII-800Mhz Laptop.
Connected in a lab environment, zero noise.

Mikrotik OS ver 2.9.28

Test software 1: IPerf TCP running on both Laptops.
Test software 2: Mikrotik Bandwidth test running on Mikrotiks.

Test Method 1 (running test to/from Laptops): used about 80% CPU power on
Mikrotik board to pass the traffic.

Test Method 2 (running to.from MIkrotik): used about 100% CPU power on
Mikrotik.

However, interesting enough, the results of the speed tests, whichever
method used, were just about identical, give or take 1 mbps.

The results of tests were

Maximum speed transferable in one direction 20Mhz channel: 16.6 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously (adding together
the values) 20.8 mbps (13.8 mbps and 7 mbps in the other).
Maximum speed transferable in one direction 10 mhz channel: 15.8 mbps.
Maximum speed transferable in both directions 10 Mhz channel: 19 mbps (10.4
mbps and 9 mbps)
Maximum speed transferable in one direction Turbo Mode speed: 18 mbps
Maximum speed transferable in both direction simultaneously Turbo Mode
(adding together the values): 22mbps.

Note: Turbo mode tested in two configurations, (A) the lowest 5.8G channel
send and highest 5.8G channel for receive, and (B) 5.8Ghz to send and 5.3Ghz
receive.
Note: All 5.8Ghz test results were at 54 mbps speed modulation, and setting
it to slower speed/modulation lowered the test speed results.
Note: Test performed with RSSI somewhere between -60 and -68, without
antennas, but w/ high quality pigtails w/Bulk head N, Pointing N