Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-25 Thread CHUCK PROFITO
Thanks!

Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 1:44 PM
To: WISPA General 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 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 these?

 Chuck Profito
 209-988-7388
 CV-ACCESS, INC
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Providing High Speed Broadband 
 to Rural Central California






 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/



  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 these?

Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 these?

 Chuck Profito
 209-988-7388
 CV-ACCESS, INC
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Providing High Speed Broadband 
 to Rural Central California



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 projects I am 
working on, the way it is now is the best option.

I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else. 
Mikrotik themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on 
our own.

Since I don't direct MT in their plans (in fact, it seems the best 
way to ensure something DOESN'T happen is for me to ask for it), I 
can't offer you any advice here.  In some respects, I agree with 
your sentiment.  I just use what's there.


-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
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.


--
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 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 is in testing now and hasn't been officially released.

 Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS.  They normally respond
 well to bugs and fixes.  They take votes from users on feature
 requests.  You can vote at:
 http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests

 Jim

 Mike Hammett wrote:
 So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers,
 improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc.
 Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host? 
 Before
 I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official
 saying that is out?

 Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and 
 TV
 shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a 
 TV
 so I can play them directly from the router?

 Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


 --
 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 Virtualization (Zen).  So
 now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
 all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
 PR 2282 to do this.

 Jim//

 Mike Hammett wrote:

 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




 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing 
 that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:


 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few
 chipsets.
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a
 new
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product 
 aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier 
 admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or 
 some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market
 into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this
 firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy





 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share
 and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see
 Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version 
 of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 While you may be right on their focus being RB

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 here, so please correct me if I'm 
wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)


Ok.  I'll do it, but I'll be gentle.  ;-)

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 put into developing a more WISP-focused solution than 
just plain-ol Wi-Fi


Here's the part that you missed.  This thread is about putting 
Mikrotik on the nanostations.  Mikrotik, if it can be installed on 
the NS, enables the ability to run NStreme, which supports the 
option to turn off CSMA.


That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is 
not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current 
market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems 
that their value-line (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and 
doesn't even have ½ the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


Out of curiosity, where are your numbers coming from?  I'm not 
doubting that Tranzeo is a market leader, but would like to see 
some clarification of this or know if it is simply an opinion.


If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you 
factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, 
you're back at that $150 / CPE level


Correct here.  The good news is that while the AirOS is very nice, 
it is not NEAR as functional as Mikrotik.  The thing that makes this 
attractive to WISPs is cost, but even more than that, it is the 
combination of cost + MT functionality + a very nice package.


With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 
802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


Very good question.

--

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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 Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 now on 2 
unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER 
location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty 
useful...if it works, that is.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
If you needed virtualization of some type, you could install it as the host 
OS, then install your Mikrotik or Asterisk or...  on top.

I guess I meant things that we can't already get somewhere else.  Mikrotik 
themselves has to do a lot of things, but we can do Xen on our own.


--
Mike 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, 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 now on 2
 unique types of deployments that will save me about $340 PER
 location (possibly over 2000 locations)...I find it pretty
 useful...if it works, that is.

 -- 
 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation *
 *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS*
 *573-276-2879 *ImageStream   *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
 *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer*
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Travis Johnson




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 to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the 
issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that 
people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open 
up a whole new world.

Travis

Gino 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

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 system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.


  
  Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)



  
  Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:



  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Gino Villarini
Maybe you got confused with the OSwave firmware

 

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 Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 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 to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.
 
Randy
 
 
Travis Johnson wrote:
  

The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling
the 
issue is having a product that is compatible and has the
features that 
people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would
open 
up a whole new world.
 
Travis
 
Gino 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]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:21 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
mailto: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 wireless. That is one of the main
reasons we are now using 
Mikrotik is because of their Nstreme and polling
system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as
Trango's polling, but it does 
work.
 
How else do you keep a single customer from
taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection,
virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and
every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a
polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best
signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).
 
Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with
two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client
and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My
tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and
very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test,
everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't
even tell there is an 
upload running.



Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the
upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the
total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test
right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 
 
  
  

What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a
Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that
would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now
today. :)
 



Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  
 
Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  

Travis
Microserv
 
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:



Hi Travis,
 
I'm with you - the Nanostations are a
pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz
channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the
performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing

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


 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:
 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. 
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if 
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new 
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional 
 cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a 
 compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. 
 It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
 as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:

 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



 Oswave says there is no NS2/5 support

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Jim Patient
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.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the 
PR 2282 to do this.

Jim//

Mike Hammett wrote:
 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


   
 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:
 
 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. 
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if 
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new 
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



   
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional 
 cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a 
 compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure. 
 It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
 as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:

   
 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

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Mike Hammett
So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
saying that is out?

Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
so I can play them directly from the router?

Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


--
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 Virtualization (Zen).  So
 now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
 all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
 PR 2282 to do this.

 Jim//

 Mike Hammett wrote:
 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



 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:

 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
 chipsets.
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
 new
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
 into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this 
 firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy




 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
 and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
 Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not 
 pick
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional
 cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a
 compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.
 It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Travis Johnson




I agree... and I actually emailed their support group last night before
this message even came out about the EXACT same thing... they seem
really hung up on adding new features instead of fixing or improving
the real issues.

Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:

  So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
saying that is out?

Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
so I can play them directly from the router?

Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


--
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 Virtualization (Zen).  So
now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
PR 2282 to do this.

Jim//

Mike Hammett wrote:


  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



  
  
Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

Scottie Arnett wrote:



  DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
chipsets.
They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
new
project starts very quickly to serve that need.

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
code already written and being developed?

Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
into
some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
"port" every stinking firmware flavor.

Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
business model .. ever?

And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, "well this 
firmware
does X better".  Is there anything particularly different between
Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

- japhy




  
  
And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not 
pick
up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional
cost.

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 it at the AP.

-- Bryan



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Jim Patient
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 is in testing now and hasn't been officially released.

Mikrotik continually works to improve the OS.  They normally respond 
well to bugs and fixes.  They take votes from users on feature 
requests.  You can vote at: 
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/MikroTik_RouterOS/v3/Feature_Requests

Jim

Mike Hammett wrote:
 So let me get this right...  Instead of working on wireless drivers, 
 improving the existing feature set, stabilizing the whole router, etc. 
 Mikrotik has been working on making your router virtual server host?  Before 
 I complain directly to Mikrotik, could you point me to something official 
 saying that is out?

 Why don't they add on Media Center capability so I can store movies and TV 
 shows on my router and stream them to my XBox, or heck, let me plug in a TV 
 so I can play them directly from the router?

 Maybe they could just directly integrate with an XBox 360 and a DirecTV?


 --
 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 Virtualization (Zen).  So
 now you can have your router, Asterisk, billing, mail server, web server
 all on one Mikrotik box.  Obviously it will take a beefy unit like the
 PR 2282 to do this.

 Jim//

 Mike Hammett wrote:
 
 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



   
 Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that
 they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!

 Scottie Arnett wrote:

 
 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few 
 chipsets.
 They are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if
 Mikrotikl drops support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a 
 new
 project starts very quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market 
 into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this 
 firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy




   
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share 
 and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see 
 Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not 
 pick
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-21 Thread Randy Cosby
Where is the polling you refer to?  Is that in the beta firmware or 
something? I haven't noticed it.

Randy


Travis Johnson wrote:
 The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the 
 issue is having a product that is compatible and has the features that 
 people are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open 
 up a whole new world.

 Travis

 Gino 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

 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 system. We are 
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
 upload running.
 

 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

   
 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)

 

 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
   
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
 platforms. 

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
   
 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
 are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's 
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the mesh game they played for a 
 year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
 product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
 So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and 
 they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
 get

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 Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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, and fcc-approved 5.4 :)  They seem to be at or near the 
end of their development timeline though for the current product line.  
So on the surface, feature-wise, NS does trump them.  I just don't trust 
them yet.

My first experience with the NS5 in a PTP link was not the best.  
Eventually a beta firmware helped stop it from locking up randomly after 
a few days.  Not something I'd use for another year or more for a 
critical client.

Randy


Charles Wu wrote:

snip
That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS

/snip



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy


 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?

 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http

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 system. We are 
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
 upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 


 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
 platforms. 

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
 are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's 
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the mesh game they played for a 
 year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
 product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
 So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and 
 they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
 get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
 sustain the company forever.

 Travis

 Charles Wu wrote:
   
 
 Travis,

 I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the 
 market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola 
 Canopy) in the last-mile access space

 However, neither you nor I run Trango

 If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty 
 interesting, coming from 2 people who really know Trango well-- we were 
 their largest distributor back before they got rid of the channel, and you 
 probably operate one of the largest Trango networks now

 That said, you've started building out your network with different access 
 solutions, and 

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 is smooth and consistent.

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... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

  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 system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

  
  
Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


  
  
Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and 
they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
sustain the company forever.

Travis

Charles Wu wrote:
  



  Travis,

I 

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

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 system. We are 
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
 upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 


 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
 platforms. 

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
 are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's 
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the mesh game they played for a 
 year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
 product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
 So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and 
 they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
 get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
 sustain the company forever.

 Travis

 Charles Wu wrote:
   
 
 Travis,

 I agree with you 100%...I still think there's a huge opportunity in the 
 market right now that's being missed for a solid 2nd player (not Motorola 
 Canopy) in the last-mile access space

 However, neither you nor I run Trango

 If you step back and look at the situation, this discussion is pretty

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 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson




The AirOS that comes on the Nanostations also has polling the issue
is having a product that is compatible and has the features that people
are already used to. Having Mikrotik on the Nano's would open up a
whole new world.

Travis

Gino 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

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 system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

  
  
Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


  
  
Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  
  
Travis
Microserv

Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  Hi Travis,

I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've 
been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with 
StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is 
pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the 
newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the 
Ubiquity price point just yet.

It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich 
features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference 
resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus 
able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS 
platforms. 

I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the 
Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna 
mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly - 
and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would 
end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every 
feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at 
the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling, 
but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
  
Hi,

I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some 
new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could 
shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti 
quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this 
coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these 
companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.) 
when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there 
are not a lot of "bells and whistles", but honestly most of the WISP's 
out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put 
whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less 
than $200 for a nice CPE.

I think Trango's first mistake was the "mesh" game they played for a 
year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a 
product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was. 
So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and 
they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help 
get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to 
sustain the company forever.

Travis

Charles Wu wrote:
  


 

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

Butch Evans wrote:

  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 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Jeromie Reeves
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, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

 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 system. We are
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
 upload running.

 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.


 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
 platforms.

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.)
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there
 are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79, you can put
 whatever you need behind it (Cisco, Mikrotik, etc.) and still be less
 than $200 for a nice CPE.

 I think Trango's first mistake was the mesh game they played for a
 year. Then when they decide to get back into the game, they promise a
 product that seems too good to be true... and now it turns out, it was.
 So, they are now 2+ years behind everyone else in the RD world, and
 they are losing customers left and right. The licensed market may help
 get them by for a while, but I don't think that is enough business to
 sustain the company forever.

 Travis

 Charles Wu wrote:


 Travis,

 I agree with you 100%...I still think

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 processor.

I didn't know that.  It's good information to have.  However, the 
Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 
2.4GHz.  For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit?

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 processor.

The CPU is the same as the RB133C.

-- 

*Butch Evans*Professional Network Consultation *
*Network Engineering*MikroTik RouterOS *
*573-276-2879   *ImageStream   *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
*Mikrotik Certified Consultant  *Professional Technical Trainer*




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

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

Butch Evans wrote: 

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 
flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but 
it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the 
ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty 
close to the same thing as the RB133C.

  




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 certified.

I know it wouldn't be hard for MT to build an OS for the Nano's... and
I also know that Ubiquiti has already tried talking to MT and they were
NOT interested... which does not make sense to me. If they could get
$40 per Nano from Ubiquiti, they would be making MORE money than
selling an RB411 or Crossroads board. They really need to look at the
bigger picture.

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 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.

  
  
I didn't know that.  It's good information to have.  However, the 
Crossroads platform is very similar in function, though it is only 
2.4GHz.  For the 5GHz, do you know the cost of a 16M unit?

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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 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.

  
  
The CPU is the same as the RB133C.

  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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:

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
 flash on the nano is 4M (maybe 8?).  I can't recall exactly, but
 it's not enough either way.  That is the only thing that limits the
 ability to run MT on the Nano, as the remaining hardware is pretty
 close to the same thing as the RB133C.

 -- 
 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation *
 *Network Engineering *MikroTik RouterOS*
 *573-276-2879 *ImageStream   *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE   *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/*Wired or wireless Networks*
 *Mikrotik Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer*
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
 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 is smooth and consistent.

 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... ;)

 Travis
 Microserv


 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 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 system. We are 
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
 upload running.
 

 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

   
 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)

 

 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
   





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical
service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as
important as the download.

Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload
on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf
with another connected client and see how it "feels"... if it's even
possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated
bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.).
That just is not possible with a non-polling system (in upload or
download scenarios).

Travis


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

  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 that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
  
  
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 is smooth and consistent.

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... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:


  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 system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.


  
  Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  
  
What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)



  
  Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  

  

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
There used to be a graphic on one of the Canopy marketing pages showing the 
loading vs latency curves for polled vs non polled systems.  Lightly loaded 
802.11 will always do better but once you get up to 20 or 30 users, the polling 
type systems start to shine with their fixed latency.
  - 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. There is a reason 
Trango, Canopy, Alvarion, and many others do a polling system... it allows 
better, more effecient use of the available bandwidth... especially for 
providers like me that sell a symmetrical service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, 
etc.). So the upload is just as important as the download.

  Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an upload on a 
client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try and surf with another 
connected client and see how it feels... if it's even possible. With the 
Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of the rated bandwidth on each AP before we 
see any issues (jitter, latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a 
non-polling system (in upload or download scenarios).

  Travis


  Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: 
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 that polling does in the implementations I have put 
together. 

As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
Nanos.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com 

Travis Johnson wrote:
  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 is smooth and consistent.

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... ;)

Travis
Microserv


Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
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 system. We are 
finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
work.

How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
AP (on the upload side).

Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
upload running.

Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

  
  What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  

  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List

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 rate. 

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that 
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work 
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com


Travis Johnson wrote:
 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... especially for providers like me that sell a symmetrical 
 service (1meg x 1meg, 2meg x 2meg, etc.). So the upload is just as 
 important as the download.

 Here's a test for you... take an AP without polling and start an 
 upload on a client that is 80% of the capacity of the AP and then try 
 and surf with another connected client and see how it feels... if 
 it's even possible. With the Trango AP's, we are able to use 95% of 
 the rated bandwidth on each AP before we see any issues (jitter, 
 latency, etc.). That just is not possible with a non-polling system 
 (in upload or download scenarios).

 Travis


 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 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 that polling does in the implementations I have put 
 together. 

 As far as the MT community being 10x the size of the StarOS Community - 
 it's not how big it is, it is what you do with it.   :^)

 I've had plenty of experience with both StarOS and MT, and MT just 
 doesn't have certain features that StarOS does.   StarOS has kickass 
 Atheros drivers and a superior way of automating the provisioning and 
 deployment.   MT does have a lot of other cool features, but I don't use 
 them so they don't mean a lot to me.  

 FWIW, the WAR-1 version of StarOS is stripped down to the point where it 
 fits into 4meg of memory.   Probably wouldn't be hard to port it to the 
 Nanos.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com 

 Travis Johnson wrote:
   
 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 is smooth and consistent.

 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... ;)

 Travis
 Microserv


 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 
 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 system. We are 
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does 
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP 
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I 
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to 
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control 
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the 
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients 
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a 
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the 
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if 
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while 
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an 
 upload running.
 
 
 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming 
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity 
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I 
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter. 

   
   
 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running 
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer 
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)

 
 
 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.  

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
   

   



 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Jeromie Reeves
Where? I see LS2/5 and PS2/5 support but nothing for NS2/5. Searching
the forum I found:

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave
We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5.

And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they
will (likely) do it.

I am not able to find it, can you post a link.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The oswave website says it supports the NS platform

 -Original Message-
 From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@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, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

 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 system. We are
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
 upload running.

 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.


 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
 platforms.

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these
 companies can really have into a radio system (Trango, Canopy, etc.)
 when Ubiquiti can sell a brand new product for $79 MSRP. Granted there
 are not a lot of bells and whistles, but honestly most of the WISP's
 out there don't need that. If you can buy a radio for $79

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 but nothing for NS2/5. Searching
the forum I found:

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:38 pm from oswave
We currently have no plans to port oswave to NS2/NS5.

And it goes on to ask why and also someone says if you order 1000 they
will (likely) do it.

I am not able to find it, can you post a link.

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 The oswave website says it supports the NS platform

 -Original Message-
 From: Jeromie Reeves [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:38 PM
 To: WISPA General List wireless@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, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

 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 system. We are
 finding now it's not the same quality as Trango's polling, but it does
 work.

 How else do you keep a single customer from taking down an entire AP
 with a large upload (usually from an infection, virus, worm, etc.)? I
 have tested this over and over and over, and every time I come back to
 the same conclusion... you have to have a polling system to control
 the upload, otherwise the customer with the best signal dominates the
 AP (on the upload side).

 Here is a very simple test... set up an AP with two connected clients
 without polling. Start an upload on one client and then try doing a
 download or even a ping from the 2nd client. My tests show the
 download and/or ping to be very unreliable and very sporadic. Now, if
 you turn polling on and do the same test, everything works fine while
 the upload is running and the 2nd client can't even tell there is an
 upload running.

 Um, bandwidth limiting?   As long as the AP has the upload speed coming
 from the client capped to a rate slightly less than the total capacity
 of the pipe, its not a problem.   I'm doing the test right now, and I
 have rock solid pings, with a little bit of jitter.


 What we really need is the Nanostation-ROS... a Nanostation running
 Mikrotik (even for $50 more per unit)... that would be the killer
 CPE... I would place an order for 500 right now today. :)


 Or Nanostation-SOS - a Nano running StarOS.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
 Travis
 Microserv

 Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
 Hi Travis,

 I'm with you - the Nanostations are a pretty amazing product.   I've
 been deploying Nanostations on 10mhz channels in 2.4 and 5ghz with
 StarOS access points and the performance/interference resistance is
 pretty amazing at ANY price point.   I could say the same thing for the
 newer Tranzeo CPE units as well, but they can't match up with the
 Ubiquity price point just yet.

 It is neat to see a product with many of the Canopy advantages (rich
 features, small footprint, inexpensive to produce, good interference
 resistance) that is compatible with the 802.11a/b/g standards and thus
 able to take advantage of the very innovative Mikrotik and StarOS
 platforms.

 I'm curious to see if someone comes up with a good reflector for the
 Nanostation radios.  That would enable the use of the adaptive antenna
 mode, and since StarOS has the ability to switch connectors on the fly -
 and potentially polarity if hooked up to a dual-pol antenna - you would
 end up with a standards based product that would have nearly every
 feature that the Trangos had that made them special (noise threshold at
 the AP, software switchable polarity, site survey, etc).   No polling,
 but that is one of the most overrated features anyway.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 Travis Johnson wrote:

 Hi,

 I would agree... I think there is an opportunity as well. There are some
 new products in the market recently (Ubiquiti Nanostation) that could
 shake things up a little. Getting an FCC product with PoE and a Ubiquiti
 quality radio for $79 is pretty amazing (I will be testing some this
 coming week). It really makes you wonder how much money some of these
 companies

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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

 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?

My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt

 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sales
These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President
 
http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170
 
Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!

*US Distributor 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.
 
 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.
 
 Matt
 
  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 rate.
 
  If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
  polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
  around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.
 
  Matt Larsen
  vistabeam.com
 
 
 ---
 -
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 ---
 -
 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

 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?

My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 
gear.  I'd certainly look at it, but just don't have a need for it now.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt

   
 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up 
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with 
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact 
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less 
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It 
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend 
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path 
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as 
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make 
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS 
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after 
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this, 
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti 
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

   
 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?
   

 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt

   
 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt


 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 

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 is requesting that they be transmitted.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt


   
 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com

 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

   

 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 
  
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

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 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 is requesting that they be transmitted.

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless


 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
 can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
 customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
 and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
 uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

 Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
 some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
 to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
 good reason - performance.

 Matt



 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 rate.

 If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
 polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
 around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

 Matt Larsen
 vistabeam.com


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson




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 MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware
company or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is
a software company as well. They do not currently have a product that
is even CLOSE to the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license
for every one of those?

Travis

Matt Ferre wrote:

  MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.


On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
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 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



  
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?

  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  
  


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  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?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  




WISPA 

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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  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?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Matt Ferre
R52H cards are made for Mikrotik by Compex. And these are exactly the
same cards as R52 ones (hardware wise) with calibration data pushed to
the limits. Or even further, one step too far, and perhaps that's why
you see such failure rate.

Cisco doesn't sell their software for generic x86 systems eventhough
they definitely could. Mikrotik used to sell their software for bare
x86 systems, but since then they decided it's better for them to sell
complete hardware+software solution. And I guess there must be a good
reason for that.


On 7/21/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company
 or software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software
 company as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to
 the Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of
 those?

 Travis

 Matt Ferre wrote:

 MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
 have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
 profit from it.


 On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 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 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
 your problems.

 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:


 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:




 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?



 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 

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 flash with Linux or
something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
code already written and being developed?

Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
port every stinking firmware flavor.

Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
business model .. ever?

And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

- japhy



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
 Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *
 


 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

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 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 flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
 pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

 -- 
 *Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
 *MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
 *http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
 *http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis






[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President

http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170

"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"

*US Distributor 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt



  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 rate.

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  


---
-
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---
-

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis




YES!


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  These post bring back memories from the Karlnet days of Karlnet vs. non
Karlnet systems :)

Michiana Wireless, Inc.
John Buwa, President

http://WWW.MichianaWireless.Com
574-233-7170

"Lose the wires, discover the speed, enjoy the freedom!"

*US Distributor 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 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 the knees or even worse and there is NOTHING you
can do about it. You could try to limit packet per second that
customer but it will only happen after the traffic hits Access Point
and will not stop the viri operation. Or get some customer with few
uncapped p2p apps and you will see pretty much the same.

Sorry, polling is the only way to go. Every mature network type uses
some type of polling scheme (from cellular 'time slots' through WiMAX
to all MMDS systems) and it's there for a reason. And it's one really
good reason - performance.

Matt



  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 rate.

If you are offering a symmetrical service, then I will concede that
polling is an important consideration.   It is pretty easy to work
around it if you are not offering symmetrical service, however.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com
  


---
-
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---
-

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  
  



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Mike Hammett
They just copied someone else's card, though I forget now who.  It's in the FCC 
docs.


--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:32 PM
  Subject: 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 MT needs to ask themselves... are they are a hardware company or 
software company? Cisco is a software company. I think MT is a software company 
as well. They do not currently have a product that is even CLOSE to the 
Nanostation in price... why not sell a MT license for every one of those?

  Travis

  Matt Ferre wrote: 
MT can manufacture NS alike hardware if they only want to. They don't
have to buy it from Ubiquiti and making Ubiquiti (competing company?)
profit from it.


On 7/20/08, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

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?
My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  

--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Scottie Arnett
DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They 
are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops 
support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very 
quickly to serve that need.

Scott

-- Original Message --
From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 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?


 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean

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
needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:

  
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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
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?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
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 for it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

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 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 flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy


 
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
 
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


   
 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?

   
 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
 could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
 license and only about $23 or so (I can't

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.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
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?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a 
spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a 
fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size 
pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself 
writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the 
chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other 
products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
- Original Message - 
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
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 has the license for it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 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 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 flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
 as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:

 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote

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 have the software side of my CPE business if I could put it on 
a NS, but since they are more interested in the hardware, and the 
constant changing stream of hardware to boot, I have stopped deploying 
MT except in a pinch when I lose equipment and don't have an upgrade handy.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 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 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
 your problems.

 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:

 
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



   
 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?


   
 My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
 MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
 not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
 a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Charles Wu
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

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

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 put into developing a more 
WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi

That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS

If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
$150 / CPE level

With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP 
buy anything 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

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 needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

your problems.



Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less

than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It

would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.



If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend

market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path

would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as

well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make

$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS

network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after

manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,

especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti

really expressed and interest in working with them.



Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...



Sam Tetherow

Sandhills Wireless



Matt

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in 
Linux.  The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the 
polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to 
do.  It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is 
out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many 
people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;)

I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it.  I 
would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as 
wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time 
to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having 
the time to acquire those skills to make it happen.  But if we find 
someone, count me in ;)

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
 Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a 
 spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a 
 fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size 
 pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself 
 writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the 
 chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other 
 products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
 - Original Message - 
 From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 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 has the license for it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 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 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 flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy



 
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick 
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even 
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the 
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware 
 as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder

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 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based
applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on
their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had
any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all
your problems.

Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At
that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.

Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely
similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.

And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is
interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:



  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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:



  
  

  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?


  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Sam Tetherow
You've summed it up pretty good.  I have a few in the field and so far 
they are holding up well.  I've been buying the NS5s when I need new CPE 
equipment (and I can find someone who has them in stock).

For residential deployments they are currently my CPE of choice.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

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

 (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
 I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

 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 put into developing a more 
 WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi

 That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
 running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
 Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line 
 (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
 of the Nanostation and AirOS

 If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
 the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
 $150 / CPE level

 With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
 WISP buy anything 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

 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 
 needed.

 Just a thought.

 Travis Johnson wrote:
 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

 your problems.



 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less

 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It

 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.



 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend

 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path

 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as

 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make

 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has

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 fit the
NS 2/5 mikrotik would likely deal Just show them the money.
  
But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 
  
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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  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?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Travis Johnson
I agree. But the rest of us that are using a protocol like Nstreme on 
Mikrotik, would like another solution. We currently pay about $180 for a 
nice, professional looking Mikrotik CPE (including antenna, card, 
pigtail, PoE, etc). If we could get a NS for $80 and put a MT license on 
it for $40, that's a $60 saving per CPE... which adds up fast when you 
are doing hundreds of installs per month.

Travis
Microserv

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

 (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
 I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

 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 put into developing a more 
 WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi

 That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
 running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
 Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line 
 (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
 of the Nanostation and AirOS

 If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
 the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
 $150 / CPE level

 With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
 WISP buy anything 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

 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 
 needed.

 Just a thought.

 Travis Johnson wrote:
 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

 your problems.



 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less

 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It

 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.



 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend

 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path

 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as

 well

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis
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 the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now), 
and the cpq-19 as needed.

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

 (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
 I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

 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 put into developing a more 
 WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi
   
I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might 
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE 
costs.
 That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
 running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
 Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line 
 (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
 of the Nanostation and AirOS
   
IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and 
allow us to keep the install costs down.
 If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
 the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
 $150 / CPE level
   
I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.  
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my 
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
 With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
 WISP buy anything else?
   
Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain, 
I'll use tranzeo
 -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

 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 
 needed.

 Just a thought.

 Travis Johnson wrote:
 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

 your problems.



 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.



 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with

 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact

 unit

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 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.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
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?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http://www.butchevans.com/ *StarOS and MORE *
*http://blog.butchevans.com/ *Wired or wireless Networks * *Mikrotik
Certified Consultant *Professional Technical Trainer *

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 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 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.
  
But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 
  
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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  
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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:


  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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  
  

  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?

  

  
  My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * 

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 put into developing a more 
 WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi
   
Well, you might be surprised how many Canopy/Trango/Alvarion wisps are 
deploying Nanostations where the RoI on a normal AP isn't in line.   
We're actually deploying Nanostations to cover those situations where 
you have 2-3 subs you can't see from any of your AP's, but a neighbor's 
house can see both one of your AP's and the subs.

Basically we're adding a Nanostation to a standard Canopy Install... so 
for the cost of the Nanostation, we gain the ability to cover those 
subscribers.

-forrest



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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 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 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 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.

But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 

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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:

  
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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  

  
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?

  
  

My understanding (this is "friend of a friend" quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen "out of the box", however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost 

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Charles Wu
Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
-85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)

The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
-92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
Trango CPQ can do

So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?

-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original 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 the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

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

 (I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
 I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

 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 put into developing a more 
 WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi

I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
 That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not 
 running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is 
 Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line 
 (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features 
 of the Nanostation and AirOS

IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
 If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
 the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
 $150 / CPE level

I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
 With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
 WISP buy anything else?

Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
 -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

 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 
 needed.

 Just a thought.

 Travis Johnson wrote:
 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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

 applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

 their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

 any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

 your problems.



 Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

 that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



 Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

 similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

 oriented company

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 the Nanos, 
especially in environments with lots of moisture or sea
4)  Proven, reliable firmware.  
5)  Tranzeo support

Might be some others, but that is off the top of my head.

Matt Larsen
vistabeam.com

Charles Wu wrote:
 Hi Blair,

 A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

 CPQ-N: $165
 CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

 +23 dBm Output Power Max
 -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
 -72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
 Features:
 Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)

 The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

 NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

 +26 dBm Output Power Max
 -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
 -74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
 Features:
 From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a 
 Trango CPQ can do

 So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a 
 pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on 
 stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?

 -Charles

   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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] Nanostations


  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 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.

  But, what features do we really want in an NS version of mikrotik ROS? 


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 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 dropped from development recently only
because 99% of the users use 'emule' free version instead of paying
for the license.

3. the low end market you refer to, which may look like they want to
buy $40 RouterOS, won't do it. They are low end and additional $40 for
software license is not what they will afford, not in any reasonable
quantity anyway. But they would just LOVE point two to happen, which
would then seriously help point 1 to happen.

StarOS was supposed to be ported to LS2 long time ago, there ever were
official announcements about it happening. But then, that never
happened. Wonder why (perhaps because StarOS too has their own
hardware to sell and same reasons as Mikrotik, perhaps only in smaller
amplitude).

Matt


On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
$40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
really expressed and interest in working with them.

Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is interested...

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Matt Ferre wrote:
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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
ever.




On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


  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?

  My understanding (this is friend of a friend quality info) is that
MT and Ubiquity DID have discussions about the NS platform.  It is
not something that is going to happen out of the box, however with
a 16M flash that Travis mentioned, perhaps it is something that
could be done.  I mean, the cost would be just $45 for the nLevel4
license and only about $23 or so (I can't recall the available
pricing) for nLevel3 plus the hardware cost.

-- 
*Butch Evans *Professional Network Consultation * *Network Engineering
*MikroTik RouterOS * *573-276-2879 *ImageStream *
*http

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Blair Davis




Long time, Charles!

All my 802.11bg problems are client talking to AP. In all cases, the
client can hear the AP just fine.

Charles Wu wrote:

  Hi Blair,

A TR-CPQ-x has the following specifications

CPQ-N: $165
CPZ-19: $175 (integrated 19 dBi antenna)

+23 dBm Output Power Max
  

23dbm into a 19db antenna = 42dbm out (cpe to AP)


  -85 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-72 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
Client NAT with QoS (probably Wmm)
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

  
The Ubiquiti NS2 has the following specifications

NS2: $79.95 (integrated 10 dBi antenna with connector)

+26 dBm Output Power Max
  

26dbm into a 10db antenna = 36dbm out (cpe to AP)

  -92 dBm @ 11 Mbps
-74 dBm @ 54 Mbps
Features:
From a manual review perspective, AirOS seems to do miles more than what a Trango CPQ can do
  

Not an issue as I bridge to users router

Sometimes, I really need that extra 6db!

  
So...there's not way you're going to spend $100 on a 19 dBi patch and a pigtail...so, assuming availability wasn't an issue or you weren't sitting on stock...why would you even buy a Tranzeo?
  

Because, as I have aged, I find that I LOVE all-in-one radio/antenna
with NO connections exposed to the weather! And no coax to kink... Or
fill with water... And no more Coax Seal or mastic!! And from a
troubleshooting/repair standpoint it makes things so simple. Swap the
radio, load the settings and you are out of there!

But, I still use Hyperlink 24db grids with the tranzeo CPQ-N as
needed. I plan to use the NS 2 with them now, as needed, but it is
rare. Most of the time, when I need that much extra, I put the user on
turbocell. Soon to be netstream...


  
-Charles



---
WiNOG Wireless Roadshows
Coming to a City Near You
http://www.winog.com


-Original 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 the NS 2 as I can.get units and where approiate.  I
will still use the tranzeo cpq-15, (think it replaced by the sl2 now),
and the cpq-19 as needed.

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

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

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 put into developing a more "WISP-focused" solution than just "plain-ol" Wi-Fi


  
  I'd agree with this.  I don't use that gear because an ap of mine might
only have 6 clients and I can not justify the high AP costs and high CPE
costs.
  
  
That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, however, looking at their site, it seems that their "value-line" (SL2) product still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have  the features of the Nanostation and AirOS


  
  IMHO, correct.  But for light duty residental users, they work well and
allow us to keep the install costs down.
  
  
If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that $150 / CPE level


  
  I agree, and because of that, the crossroads has no appeal for me, yet.
I am considering them as a path to netstream on 2.4GHz to replace my
turbocell stuff, as most all of my turbocell gear was assembled by me.
  
  
With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based WISP buy anything else?


  
  Where its antenna gain is enought, I won't.  Where I need more gain,
I'll use tranzeo
  
  
-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

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 needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
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 mont

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations - question

2008-07-20 Thread Scottie Arnett

Charles, we are a Canopy shop. I think most are looking at the ability to 
compete more profitably with DSL/cable...at least that is what I am after. Not 
counting the build out of lines/cable to the customer, the DSL/Cable Co's are 
out around $50 or less for the CPE end. I have not looked in a while, but about 
2 years ago I could get some used 24/48 port dslams for around $3,000...just 
saw a 48 port lucent stinger on ebay for $1500...so about the same price of a 
new 900Mhz Canopy AP.

While it cost us WISP alot less than DSL/Cable to build our infrastructure, 
they are out MUCH less for the CPE end and offering carrier class broadband. I 
am putting the cable buildout to the side, because they already had this done 
for telephone/TV and have that added revenue to pay for that already.

So, yes, a sub $100 CPE is what I am looking for. It may not be carrier class, 
but if it works...I am all for it.

just my thoughts,
Scottie Arnett 

-- Original Message --
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:11:58 -0500

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

(I'm making a lot of assumptions here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, as 
I'm a relative newbie to this segment of the market)

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 put into developing a more 
WISP-focused solution than just plain-ol Wi-Fi

That said, getting into the world of Wi-Fi CPE - for anyone who is not running 
a proprietary protocol, it seems that the current market leader is Tranzeo, 
however, looking at their site, it seems that their value-line (SL2) product 
still goes for about $130 and doesn't even have ½ the features of the 
Nanostation and AirOS

If you're running Mikrotik in 802.11x (WiFi) mode, by the time you factor in 
the cost of the card, antenna, enclosure, power supply, you're back at that 
$150 / CPE level

With the Nanostation at $89.95, why would anyone deploying a 802.11x-based 
WISP buy anything 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

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 needed.

Just a thought.

Travis Johnson wrote:
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 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 the high power card of choice for all MT based

applications. Just at that time you could see MT support posts on

their forum starting to suggest swapping SR5 to R52H if you only had

any problems and that move alone was magicaly supposed to cure all

your problems.



Then there came RB133 - a cheap CPE replacement for LS5 and/or LS2. At

that time LS2/LS5 became a no-no for MT use too.



Then again, there is a Crossroads which is brand new and strangely

similiar to LS2. That's obviously a coincidence too.



And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit

oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and

having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see

Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik

supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of

hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.







On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up

the extra sale

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Dennis Burgess
Very seriously doubt they will be dropping support for x86.  Seeing that 
they just introduced visualization only offered on the x86 platform!  

Scottie Arnett wrote:
 DD-WRT and OpenWRT pretty much already do this for quite a few chipsets. They 
 are not near the software as Mikrotik or StarOS is...but, if Mikrotikl drops 
 support for x86, I would not be suprised if they or a new project starts very 
 quickly to serve that need.

 Scott

 -- Original Message --
 From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@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] 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 lost - hard?

 For me, (and perhaps the low-end market!) I really just want a
 card/enclosure/poe/N-connector that I can flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy


   
 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out there.  The upgrade path
 would be perfect for their hardware.  They would sell the AP hardware as
 well as higher end CPEs for business and backhauls and  still make
 $40/CPE on the cheap end.  And the operator has a 100% end to end ROS
 network.  I wonder if they are making $40 on a crossroads after
 manufacture and shipping.  I really don't see the downside to this,
 especially if the hardware is similar to the crossroads and ubiquiti
 really expressed and interest in working with them.

 Well, if MT doesn't want the business, I wonder if Lonnie is 
 interested...

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Ferre wrote:
   
 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 more into selling Routerboard + Routeros package than the
 software alone. Ubiquiti would be the main beneficiary of that
 situation and that's why you're not going to see it happen. Never
 ever.




 On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Jeromie Reeves wrote:


 
 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?

 
 My understanding (this is friend of a friend

Re: [WISPA] Nanostations

2008-07-20 Thread Japhy Bartlett
A sort of naive question:

Is the polling from tc particularly different?  Does it need to be
done via MAC and not IP?

dhcpd can easily assign IPs based on the client's MAC.

Do people just need a GUI on top of OpenWRT?

-j

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 PPPoE, NAT and the queuing are all pretty much available as is in
 Linux.  The part that really needs to be written, it my opinion is the
 polling MAC which is not something many people are probably qualified to
 do.  It is not a trivial problem to get right, I'm not sure how much is
 out there that one could base their code on and I don't know too many
 people that are willing to alpha test live customers on one ;)

 I think it would be cool, but I don't have the time to invest in it.  I
 would be happy to spend a bit of time working on other stuff, such as
 wrapping the queuing, nat or other bits, but to actually spend the time
 to implement a new MAC, I don't have the skills and don't see me having
 the time to acquire those skills to make it happen.  But if we find
 someone, count me in ;)

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
 Well, if there was a framework of working code, and a group to help write a
 spec, I am sure some of us would hack at some of it.  For example, a
 fraction of NAT or PPPoE or a filter or whatever could be done in bite size
 pieces.  I would love to write a small chunk.  I used to support myself
 writing code and still find it mildly theraputic when I seldom get the
 chance.  But I really have no clue as to how much ROS or any of the other
 products cost as we are a 100% canopy shop.
 - Original Message -
 From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 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 has the license for it.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 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 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 flash with Linux or
 something similar; why everyone wants to make their own proprietary
 firmware sort of baffles me - why not tap into all of the very good
 code already written and being developed?

 Unless you are trying to deliver a commercial, polished product aimed
 at users who are less savvy about the guts and want an easier admin.
 solution.  I.e., Windows and Apple.

 Look at how the PC market converged towards x86!  If Mikrotik or some
 of the other big firmware companies pressured the hardware market into
 some sort of interchangeable hardware standard, we wouldn't need to
 port every stinking firmware flavor.

 Just saying, I think that Windows is arguably the most successful
 business model .. ever?

 And just as a last thought - nobody's really said, well this firmware
 does X better.  Is there anything particularly different between
 Mikrotik, or StarOS or AirOS?

 - japhy




 And no, I am not saying Mikrotik is evil. They are just a profit
 oriented company with clear idea how to explore their market share and
 having a really solid businessplan. And just as you will never see
 Microsoft supporting Linux type software, you will never see Mikrotik
 supporting NS2/5. Though it's likely you may see Mikrotik version of
 hardware pretty much the same as NS2/5 sometime soon.



 On 7/21/08, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 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 writing the software to go with their hardware, why not pick
 up
 the extra sale on someone elses hardware at next to no addtional cost.

 People buying the NS2/5 are doing it from a cost standpoint.  Even
 with
 an additional $40 for a software license it would be 110 for a compact
 unit with integrated antenna, dual polarity and a POE.  That is $10
 less
 than just the crossroads board with no POE, antenna or enclosure.   It
 would cost another 50% for a rootenna and POE.

 If they worked with Ubiquiti they would have a chance to own the
 lowend
 market and finally have certified gear out