Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-25 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Hi Chuck, Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as expected. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CHUCK PROFITO wrote: Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz channels, that they only line up

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-24 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like the Star OS base AP, that can slide back and forth to the edges. Are we missing something...what are you guys doing in a crowded environment with

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-24 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Hi Chuck, Need to put the new AirOS 3.0 firmware on the NS5s and they will work as expected. Matt Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CHUCK PROFITO wrote: Has anyone on the list noticed on the 5.x nanos, that when selecting 10 Mhz channels, that they only line up in the center of the channel, not like

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-22 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as the host OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or... on top. It's not that it was something I needed, but am using it since it is already installed. In order to get the particular

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations No Mike, not just our systems, any x86 system. That is why we don't think they are ending x86 support any time soon. The package

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Charles Wu wrote: So, seeing the activity on this latest thread regarding Nanostations has peaked my interest...so, to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research on Nanostations You didn't do quite enough research. :-) (I'm making a lot of assumptions

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who. It's in the FCC docs. IIRC, the MT cards are relabled Compex cards. -- *Butch Evans*Professional

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Jim Patient wrote: Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). Got Jim, too...he meant Virtualization (Xen). :-) -- *Butch Evans*Professional Network

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Butch Evans
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: Right, but my point was that Mikrotik doesn't need to be worrying about virtualization. They need to put some more work into QA and USEFUL feature expansion, like into 802.11 and 802.16, not Xen. You don't think XEN can be useful? I have it in testing

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Mike Hammett wrote: Right

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Travis Johnson
Villarini wrote: Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject:

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Gino Villarini
22, 2008 12:11 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Hi, I would have bet any amount of money that I saw polling as an option in the AirOS stuff... but now that I am looking for it, I can't seem to find it. :( Travis Randy Cosby wrote: Where is the polling you refer

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
Visualization? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Jim Patient
? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dennis Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Very seriously

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jim Patient [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Travis Johnson
Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jim Patient" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Bryan Scott
On Jul 20, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: Thay just need to add a couple of features to the t45... Better ethernet configuration options 5 10 40 channels support gino DD-WRT has Ubiquity versions now. Didn't have much luck with it as a client (on a NS5), but haven't tried

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Jim Patient
] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Spell checker must have got Dennis. He meant Virtualization (Zen). So now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server all on one Mikrotik box

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Randy Cosby
: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Charles Wyble
Randy Cosby wrote: Is polling like token passing? Say something like http://frottle.sourceforge.net/ ? Where is the polling you refer to? Is that in the beta firmware or something? I haven't noticed it. Randy -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-21 Thread Randy Cosby
There are some apples / oranges differences between Tranzeo and Nanostation that Tranzeo really ought to trumpet more. Things like firmware rollbacks, built-in RAID file systems, etc. And they have had a lot more time to work out a lot of bugs and irritations. All of mine just work. Oh,

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Matt Jenkins
DD-WRT does run on the NS. Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Matt, Polling is a requirement for a system that will scale to larger number of clients. I have Trango AP's that will only do 5Mbps total bandwidth, yet we have loaded them up to their max clients (128) and have no issues. Latency is less than 5ms to any client at any time, and the bandwidth

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Gino Villarini
Well you all have the option to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: And although I have great respect for StarOS, the Mikrotik community is at least 10x bigger than StarOS... it would make more sense for Ubiquiti to load Mikrotik on the Nano's... ;) First, there is not enough flash on the Nanos to hold MT. IIRC, the

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
to flash the nanostations with oswave firmware. The oswave has polling... gino -Original Message- From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Butch, You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that processor. Travis Microserv

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Jeromie Reeves
: [WISPA] Nanostations Travis Johnson wrote: Matt, I agree with almost everything you said... except the polling part. Having a robust, efficient polling system is the best thing available for outdoor wireless. That is one of the main reasons we are now using Mikrotik is because

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Butch Evans
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that on their forums. I think the bigger issue would be the CPU that is in the Nano's would not be supported with any current MT builds. They would have to build a new OS for that

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Gino Villarini
Afaik the latests Mk builds are ATheros cpu focused, all the latest mikrotik routerboards are atheros based gino -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:36 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
If I remember correctly, it was only like $10 or $20 more. Here's the difference the Crossroads (which I have deployed) still requires a PoE, antenna, pigtail, etc. bringing the cost up to over $150... and then you are still stuck with a vertical or horizontal system, and not FCC

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Really... I did not know that... I will contact Ubiquiti about getting a 16M version so I can try and load MT on it. :) Travis Microserv Butch Evans wrote: On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: You can order the Nano's with 16M of Flash, Ubiquiti has already stated that

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
I wonder if the chip could be changed to give you more memory. - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Travis Johnson wrote

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Travis, I've got 802.11a APs with 90-100 subs on them without polling and customers are very happy. I am one of them - as I have a 4meg connection at my house that does just about anything my Trango gear would do when I was using it. Bandwidth control addresses nearly all of the issues

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Matt, Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs. There is a reason Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a "polling" system... it allows better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth...

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Matt, Having 90-100 subs on an AP that supports roughly 20Mbps of bandwidth is different than an AP that supports 5Mbps with 128 subs

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
I see where you are getting at, but it isn't really relevant, at least the way I have my network setup. None of my customers have an upload that gets to even 40% (I don't do symmetrical upload, so the highest upload we offer is 2meg) and the access points handle it pretty easily at that

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Jeromie Reeves
@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support and will not be. DD-WRT has support. That is a shame since ros/sos seam not to have plans to support them. I wonder how much effort/money it would be to get Ubiquity to solicit a firmware from someone? On Sun

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Gino Villarini
All are the same platform, the differ only on the form factor and antennas gino -Original Message- From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:19 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from porting Mikrotik to NS5? Mikrotik? No, their Routerboard sales would drop and as we see during last two years they are

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer infected with some decent virus and it will generate 5000 packets per seconds, which may account to only 256kbps in raw traffic terms. But with regular Access Point this will bring your AP to

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sales
* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Ferre Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one customer with computer

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Gino Villarini
Mk can buy nanostations in bulk, -Original Message- From: Matt Ferre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Never really had a major problem with this. Just keep P2P apps limited at the core router, no intercell relay and connection limits per customer. It would be nice if there was a polling implementation that could be easily implemented with standards-based equipment instead of proprietary

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
While you may be right on their focus being RB+ROS. I don't understand why they would not want to sell a $40 license on a piece of hardware giving them a theoretical profit of close to $40. Hardware has to be manufactured and shipped and warrantied to some extent. If they are already

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like limiting throughput? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Ferre wrote: It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets per second. Get just one

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
Not really because virus program will purposely keep opening new connection. P2P apps will be doing the same. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I haven't tried it, wouldn't limiting packets per second cause the IP stack on the sending machine to back down just like

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent a lot of money for development and which (obviously) they prefer to sell, 2. could potentialy lead to situation same as with x86 version of MT, which was supposed to be

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
The application layer knows nothing about congestion (packets or bytes), it is the network layers job to keep track of that. If packets are getting dropped the IP stack should back off on all sends. It shouldn't matter if they are small packets or large and it shouldn't matter what program

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
One more note. Mikrotik has long history of introducing 'their' version of hardware that was previously sold by UBNT and made the momentum. First there was SR5. Then there came Mikrotik R52H, which is far worse in terms of performance and quality (though 50% cheaper) but just at that time became

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
This only applies to already open TCP connections. If the application keeps opening new TCP connections, or better, uses UDP flood on a purpose, it will not be affected by dropped packets in any way. On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The application layer knows nothing about

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) Travis Microserv Matt Ferre wrote: Because that would: 1. affect sales of routerboard hardware which they have complete control on, on which they already spent

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads or RB411 (which we are buying hundreds per month of now). If it's a business decision, MT would be smart to port the software ASAP. Travis Matt Ferre wrote: One more note. Mikrotik

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:28 PM To: wireless@wispa.org wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Looking at the posts on the Mikrotik forum I'd say Mikrotik doesn't exactly like Ubiquiti. And from business point of view I can clearly see why. Who exactly would benefit from

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it. On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE money by porting ROS to the Nanostation than they currently make on the Crossroads

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Japhy Bartlett
Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware lost - hard? For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
istributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Ferre Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations It's not about the upload speed, it's about the packets

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
istributor for www.itelite.net Antennas* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt Ferre Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:38 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations It's not about the upload speed, it's about the p

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Mike Hammett
: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations MT doesn't know radio cards or antennas. They have proven their radio card capabilities in the R52H world. About 3 months ago we ordered 50 R52H cards and saw a 50% failure rate right out of the box. There are still people seeing that mess going on. The question

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Scottie Arnett
PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik should take a note from Microsoft's book.. Remember how we went through the whole Apple/Windows game? How the company that wrote software for specific hardware

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things could be removed to maybe get it down to the flash size

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations Maybe Mikrotik

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to fit the NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money.

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations I think for the most part those that would like something like this and have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment that already

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
But I'm not. I never bought MT based clients precisely because they were too expensive. While I would like to have the control to do all of the ROS things on the client radio I could not justify the expense of purchasing the components and assembling the final product to deploy. MT could

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Charles Wu
PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
20, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations I think for the most part those that would like something like this and have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment that already has

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Yup... it's the Catch 22 scenario... :( Travis Matt Ferre wrote: As long as you (and others) are actually buying these RB411s and Crossroads instead of Nanostations they won't even consider doing it. On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mikrotik would make MORE

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for the $119 price running ROS today. Who do I make the P.O. out to? :) If you were able to place a P.O for a 2-3 thousand licenses to

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations You know, It doesn't need to be a full port of mikrotik either... It needs to be a client. 802.11abg, netstream, bridging, basic NAT, dhcp client/server, ppp client, and interface queues would be enough for most of us. A lot of things could

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with some functions deleted. Travis Johnson wrote: Why not just the normal, regular version? Blair Davis wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: I would place an order for 500 Nanostations (5ghz units) for

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that have 16Meg of memory. I am waiting to hear back from them on pricing, but I thought it was only like $10 more. ;) Travis Blair Davis wrote: Flash size and memory limits? fitting it into 4Mbyt might be easier with

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Forrest W. Christian
Charles Wu wrote: Now, it seems to me that the Nanostation, although cheaper in price, due to being limited to running CSMA/CA, does not do a good job in competing with the Motorola Canopy / Trango / Alvarions of the world...people who buy those products are paying for the extra RD effort

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
did not catch that. all good. on the other hand, they might make a 'client only' flash that fit in the smaller space if they were worried about impacting their higher end gear sales? Travis Johnson wrote: But as I said earlier, Ubiquiti told me they make custom NS units that have 16Meg

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Charles Wu
] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question Charles, I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I am now deploying the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate. I will still use

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Larsen - Lists
Here are a few reasons to buy the Tranzeo 1) 3 year warranty 2) Available stock - tried to buy a lot of Nanostations lately?Good luck getting them consistently. 3) Tranzeo design has been through a few winters and hot summers. There are already some questions about the durability of

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Mike Hammett
I believe someone else on here said you can get them with 16 mb flash. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Blair Davis To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question Charles, I use tranzeo for my 802.11b/g clients since about 2 years ago or so. I am now deploying

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Scottie Arnett
else? -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Dennis Burgess
@wispa.org Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:01:19 -0600 I am surprised an open source project has not sprung up to do this. - Original Message - From: Japhy Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Japhy Bartlett
, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Nanostations I think for the most part those that would like something like this and have the skills to do it, don't have the time to do the initial work or support it. It is easier to just buy StarOS or ROS, or buy equipment that already has the license