Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review
the Cisco to a Linux box. Our solution is not to use Cisco Switches, the Atlases are one of a kind, and a value we are not willing to give up. This is also solvable by having access to the Cisco switch, to check teh CRCs from the Cisco side. OF course that only works if you are in control of the Cisco to acces it. That experience above was not related to connecting a Trango. Were you able to get the Tlink to work with the Cisco, by hard setting the Cisco to a specific configuration? Its not a big deal IF a workign configuration can be discovered. Whats a problem is a solution that won't survive a reboot. For example with the ViaRhine MT cards, after a Atlas reboots, the Rhine NIC needs to be reset to autoneg the appropriate speed. Again a problem with the NIC not the radio. But it was annoying. But if I can hard set a port, and that will work, after a reboot all is good, then it jsut becomes a documentation issue. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marty Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review Thanks for the review Patrick. This message was sent from my Iphone Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. 703-554-6620 (office) [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few weeks back I asked for opinions of the TrangoLink-45 radios. Since then I've installed two pairs and figured I'd share my experiences with the list. Physical design. The antenna and radio housing are solidly built and look like they will last. However, the mounting system is not as well designed as the rest of the radio. First, it is made of zinc plated steel, which I suspect will rust after a while. The mount uses a U- bolt to attach the radio to a pole. This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Since there is no hoist loop in the radio housing, you can't tie the radio off to the tower and use both hands to tighten the u-bolt. Also, the mount is specced to work with up to 3 diameter poles, but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. The telnet interface for radio configuration is simple and effective. Never having used a Trango radio before, it took me about 30 minutes to be completely comfortable with the radio setup and management interface. SNMP support looks good but I haven't gotten this set up on my network yet. One little plus is the PoE pinout and voltage is compatible with Canopy gear- this radio plugged right into a CTM-1m once the timing pulse was switched off. DFS. The radar avoidance DFS on these radios works by using a separate receiver circuit to compare the instantaneous received power level to a threshold. Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. In my case, I had a weather radar tower less than a mile from one of the radios. The tower transmits with an EIRP of 6.9 GW (yes, gigawatts) at 5500 MHz. Emissions outside of the radar's licensed band were enough to trigger DFS sporadically throughout the 5.3 and 5.4 bands. Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. Performance. I haven't done thorough testing yet but I'm getting almost zero ARQ retransmissions and the highest modulation mode on my 1/2 mile link, so about 35 Mbps of TCP throughput sounds reasonable. Network issues. #1 is that there appears to be a bug with the new VLAN implementation for the radio's management interfaces. The radios won't respond to any traffic not originating outside of its subnet. My packet sniffer shows pings going into the unit from a machine on the local network segment and one on another network, and replies are only generated for the machine on the local network. Trango engineering is working on the problem. Second, I was getting ethernet errors when connected to a Cisco Catalyst 3548 switch. This was difficult to track down because there are no CRC error counters available in these radios and there is no way to hard-set Ethernet speed and duplex settings. Putting a cheapo netgear unmanaged switch between the Cisco and the Trango eliminated the errors. According to Trango, they cannot implement manual speed and duplex settings due to hardware limitations (wtf?). Anyway, sorry for the manuscript. All in all, decent set of radios for $2000. A little rough around the edges compared to the Orthogons I am used to, but the performance is better and you can't beat the price. Patrick --- --- --- --- WISPA Wants You! Join
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review
Patrick, Again, good feedback. The area we had trouble in 5.4Ghz was Dulles/Ashburn VA area. (They've worked well everywhere esle.) As well, the Trangos surveyed no noise, but yet something existed, as we couldn't get it to stay on any DFS channel for long. Making it worthless for either 5.3G or 5.4G at that site. That was using 2ft dishes in a PtP. It was no big deal, because at the time, it was jsut for evaluating/testing the gear, we had no plans for 5.4G there at the site, we are using 5.8Ghz. But we did want to better investigate, as we had planned to use 5.4G at a different cell site down the street, once we got a better understanding of that are 5.4G environment and technology. I have only been able to see them using a real spectrum analyzer. I Arg, guess I got to pony up the money soon to :-( Great idea on the Drum antenna, to help. But an expensive alternative. Anyone selling cost effective 2ft drums yet in 5.4G/Tri-band? Maybe Gabriel's? There was one other thing I didn't like about the TL45. The channel scan only does 20Mhz increments. It would ahve been nice if the scan could check in 10Mhz increments. It would make it much easier to determine the best way to adapt other colocated gear to find/make a clear channel. (Even though the Tlink doesn't do 10Mhz itself) Overall these radios rock though. The first 6 we put in place on 5.8G, have been great. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review Tom, For the radar identification, I found that the Trango survey tool wasn't able to see the extremely short RF bursts that the radar sends out. They are only a few microseconds long. I have only been able to see them using a real spectrum analyzer. I use a Tektronics 492 that I snagged off of ebay. It's old and generates a fair amount of internal thermal noise, but it does the trick. Also helpful is to check the FCC database for licenses in the 5300-5700 MHz area- that will tell you what frequencies and power levels the weather radars in the area are using, and give you transmitter coordinates. Does that one in Tyson's corner give you guys any trouble? The way I understand the radar detection mechanism in the Atlas radios from the FCC filing documents and test lab comments is this. There is a separate receiver circuit from the main data receiver that pulls off the active antenna (H, V). It simply looks at the incoming power level at the selected frequency and compares it to a setpoint, which is -46 dBm for the integrated 23 dBi model I think. I don't know any of the filter specs, but in my case it was detecting radar on channels that were not actually occupied by radar, so it must be affected by noise on nearby channels. If I were deploying at this site again, I'd be using external drum antennas to cut down on interference from that weather radar, which would also let me put external filters in place. Also, the radar detection is only performed on the MU side, so switching the MU to the far side of the link helped as well. My radios must have come with short u-bolts. I got some new longer ones from Home Depot that worked on a 2 or 2.5 pole but I'm still 99% sure they wouldn't work on a 3 pole. For the Cisco issue, they work great with Catalyst 2924XL switches, which 3 of the radios are attached to. The 3548 that gave the Atlas fits is installed in a datacenter where I buy bandwidth and could not be changed out for other hardware. Putting an unmanaged netgear switch between the Cisco and the Trango fixed the problem. Errors were only occuring on the Trango end of the ethernet link, none on the Cisco end. Both sides had claimed to negotiate to 100/Full, but kept getting packet loss on the way from the Cisco to the Trango. I don't like having one more point of failure (the netgear switch) in the mix, but that was the only solution I saw, and that's what redundant paths are for. Patrick Tom DeReggi wrote: Patrick, We have been very happy with our Tlink45s. I felt you gave some excellent feedback i nyour review. A couple comments... Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. How do you do your through analysis for tracking things like Radars that Hop arround? Other than generic advice like buy a real analyzer, and special techniques? Did you find the Trango Spectrum analyzer tool accurate enough to give you what you need to find? Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. That could use a bit more clarification. Are you saying that anything that comes in loudenough on your used channel creates an event? Or are you saying anything
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review
Thanks for the review Patrick. This message was sent from my Iphone Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. 703-554-6620 (office) [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few weeks back I asked for opinions of the TrangoLink-45 radios. Since then I've installed two pairs and figured I'd share my experiences with the list. Physical design. The antenna and radio housing are solidly built and look like they will last. However, the mounting system is not as well designed as the rest of the radio. First, it is made of zinc plated steel, which I suspect will rust after a while. The mount uses a U- bolt to attach the radio to a pole. This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Since there is no hoist loop in the radio housing, you can't tie the radio off to the tower and use both hands to tighten the u-bolt. Also, the mount is specced to work with up to 3 diameter poles, but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. The telnet interface for radio configuration is simple and effective. Never having used a Trango radio before, it took me about 30 minutes to be completely comfortable with the radio setup and management interface. SNMP support looks good but I haven't gotten this set up on my network yet. One little plus is the PoE pinout and voltage is compatible with Canopy gear- this radio plugged right into a CTM-1m once the timing pulse was switched off. DFS. The radar avoidance DFS on these radios works by using a separate receiver circuit to compare the instantaneous received power level to a threshold. Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. In my case, I had a weather radar tower less than a mile from one of the radios. The tower transmits with an EIRP of 6.9 GW (yes, gigawatts) at 5500 MHz. Emissions outside of the radar's licensed band were enough to trigger DFS sporadically throughout the 5.3 and 5.4 bands. Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. Performance. I haven't done thorough testing yet but I'm getting almost zero ARQ retransmissions and the highest modulation mode on my 1/2 mile link, so about 35 Mbps of TCP throughput sounds reasonable. Network issues. #1 is that there appears to be a bug with the new VLAN implementation for the radio's management interfaces. The radios won't respond to any traffic not originating outside of its subnet. My packet sniffer shows pings going into the unit from a machine on the local network segment and one on another network, and replies are only generated for the machine on the local network. Trango engineering is working on the problem. Second, I was getting ethernet errors when connected to a Cisco Catalyst 3548 switch. This was difficult to track down because there are no CRC error counters available in these radios and there is no way to hard-set Ethernet speed and duplex settings. Putting a cheapo netgear unmanaged switch between the Cisco and the Trango eliminated the errors. According to Trango, they cannot implement manual speed and duplex settings due to hardware limitations (wtf?). Anyway, sorry for the manuscript. All in all, decent set of radios for $2000. A little rough around the edges compared to the Orthogons I am used to, but the performance is better and you can't beat the price. Patrick --- --- --- --- 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] TrangoLink-45 Review
Steel housing? Not aluminum or die cast zinc? Is it machined out of billet or folded and welded or what? - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:11 PM Subject: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review A few weeks back I asked for opinions of the TrangoLink-45 radios. Since then I've installed two pairs and figured I'd share my experiences with the list. Physical design. The antenna and radio housing are solidly built and look like they will last. However, the mounting system is not as well designed as the rest of the radio. First, it is made of zinc plated steel, which I suspect will rust after a while. The mount uses a U-bolt to attach the radio to a pole. This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Since there is no hoist loop in the radio housing, you can't tie the radio off to the tower and use both hands to tighten the u-bolt. Also, the mount is specced to work with up to 3 diameter poles, but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. The telnet interface for radio configuration is simple and effective. Never having used a Trango radio before, it took me about 30 minutes to be completely comfortable with the radio setup and management interface. SNMP support looks good but I haven't gotten this set up on my network yet. One little plus is the PoE pinout and voltage is compatible with Canopy gear- this radio plugged right into a CTM-1m once the timing pulse was switched off. DFS. The radar avoidance DFS on these radios works by using a separate receiver circuit to compare the instantaneous received power level to a threshold. Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. In my case, I had a weather radar tower less than a mile from one of the radios. The tower transmits with an EIRP of 6.9 GW (yes, gigawatts) at 5500 MHz. Emissions outside of the radar's licensed band were enough to trigger DFS sporadically throughout the 5.3 and 5.4 bands. Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. Performance. I haven't done thorough testing yet but I'm getting almost zero ARQ retransmissions and the highest modulation mode on my 1/2 mile link, so about 35 Mbps of TCP throughput sounds reasonable. Network issues. #1 is that there appears to be a bug with the new VLAN implementation for the radio's management interfaces. The radios won't respond to any traffic not originating outside of its subnet. My packet sniffer shows pings going into the unit from a machine on the local network segment and one on another network, and replies are only generated for the machine on the local network. Trango engineering is working on the problem. Second, I was getting ethernet errors when connected to a Cisco Catalyst 3548 switch. This was difficult to track down because there are no CRC error counters available in these radios and there is no way to hard-set Ethernet speed and duplex settings. Putting a cheapo netgear unmanaged switch between the Cisco and the Trango eliminated the errors. According to Trango, they cannot implement manual speed and duplex settings due to hardware limitations (wtf?). Anyway, sorry for the manuscript. All in all, decent set of radios for $2000. A little rough around the edges compared to the Orthogons I am used to, but the performance is better and you can't beat the price. Patrick 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] TrangoLink-45 Review
The antenna radome is some sort of plastic, with an anodized aluminum panel that supports the antenna PCB. The electronics are sandwiched between that aluminum panel and a die cast enclosure. The mounting system is a piece of 1/8 stamped zinc plated steel that is folded 90 degrees. It is also bolted to the aluminum panel. The edges are folded to stiffen it. You can barely see the back of one of these in the center picture here: http://www.trangobroadband.com/im/backhaul_tl45_img_strip_sm.jpg Also, the way they tell you to mount that bracket to the radio, it places a large torsional moment on whatever you have it mounted to when the wind blows. That makes it even more likely to blow out of alignment. I suggest mounting the stamped steel bracket 180 degrees from how they picture it so that the pole the radio is attached to is close to the radio centerline. Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: Steel housing? Not aluminum or die cast zinc? Is it machined out of billet or folded and welded or what? - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:11 PM Subject: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review A few weeks back I asked for opinions of the TrangoLink-45 radios. Since then I've installed two pairs and figured I'd share my experiences with the list. Physical design. The antenna and radio housing are solidly built and look like they will last. However, the mounting system is not as well designed as the rest of the radio. First, it is made of zinc plated steel, which I suspect will rust after a while. The mount uses a U-bolt to attach the radio to a pole. This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Since there is no hoist loop in the radio housing, you can't tie the radio off to the tower and use both hands to tighten the u-bolt. Also, the mount is specced to work with up to 3 diameter poles, but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. The telnet interface for radio configuration is simple and effective. Never having used a Trango radio before, it took me about 30 minutes to be completely comfortable with the radio setup and management interface. SNMP support looks good but I haven't gotten this set up on my network yet. One little plus is the PoE pinout and voltage is compatible with Canopy gear- this radio plugged right into a CTM-1m once the timing pulse was switched off. DFS. The radar avoidance DFS on these radios works by using a separate receiver circuit to compare the instantaneous received power level to a threshold. Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. In my case, I had a weather radar tower less than a mile from one of the radios. The tower transmits with an EIRP of 6.9 GW (yes, gigawatts) at 5500 MHz. Emissions outside of the radar's licensed band were enough to trigger DFS sporadically throughout the 5.3 and 5.4 bands. Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. Performance. I haven't done thorough testing yet but I'm getting almost zero ARQ retransmissions and the highest modulation mode on my 1/2 mile link, so about 35 Mbps of TCP throughput sounds reasonable. Network issues. #1 is that there appears to be a bug with the new VLAN implementation for the radio's management interfaces. The radios won't respond to any traffic not originating outside of its subnet. My packet sniffer shows pings going into the unit from a machine on the local network segment and one on another network, and replies are only generated for the machine on the local network. Trango engineering is working on the problem. Second, I was getting ethernet errors when connected to a Cisco Catalyst 3548 switch. This was difficult to track down because there are no CRC error counters available in these radios and there is no way to hard-set Ethernet speed and duplex settings. Putting a cheapo netgear unmanaged switch between the Cisco and the Trango eliminated the errors. According to Trango, they cannot implement manual speed and duplex settings due to hardware limitations (wtf?). Anyway, sorry for the manuscript. All in all, decent set of radios for $2000. A little rough around the edges compared to the Orthogons I am used to, but the performance is better and you can't beat the price. Patrick 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] TrangoLink-45 Review
Patrick, We have been very happy with our Tlink45s. I felt you gave some excellent feedback i nyour review. A couple comments... Do a thorough spectrum analysis before deploying these radios or be prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting later. How do you do your through analysis for tracking things like Radars that Hop arround? Other than generic advice like buy a real analyzer, and special techniques? Did you find the Trango Spectrum analyzer tool accurate enough to give you what you need to find? Anything coming into the receiver port over that threshold is considered a radar event and initiates a channel change. That could use a bit more clarification. Are you saying that anything that comes in loudenough on your used channel creates an event? Or are you saying anything. I'm mentioning that jsut because Trangos have pretty good filters built-in, so I would assume that maybe just noise over a certain level near the 5.x band could do it? This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Yes, I agree that is a pain. But incomparision, that is a design flaw shared by many common brand radios and antennas. but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. Not sure why you say that. All our Tlinks are mounted to poles that are wider diameter than 2. (Are yours shipping with short ubolts or something?) Cisco Catalyst 3548 switch. This was difficult to track down because there are no CRC error counters available in these radios and there is no way to hard-set Ethernet speed and duplex settings. Putting a cheapo netgear unmanaged switch between the Cisco and the Trango eliminated the errors. According to Trango, they cannot implement manual speed and duplex settings due to hardware limitations (wtf?). I agree, its disappointing that the Tlink don't have manually setable ports and error stats, and it would be useful to have that for many troubleshooting reasons... The flaw is actually in the Cisco hardware. Cisco is known for its common failure to function with other ANEG third party routers. With Cisco, its not always fixable by putting a cheap unmanaged switch in between either. We just ran into it with a 3550 this week. After trying, 1 managed swithes hard set, and 4 brands of auto-neg unmanaged switches, we finally had to ditch the idea, and connect the Cisco to a Linux box. Our solution is not to use Cisco Switches, the Atlases are one of a kind, and a value we are not willing to give up. This is also solvable by having access to the Cisco switch, to check teh CRCs from the Cisco side. OF course that only works if you are in control of the Cisco to acces it. That experience above was not related to connecting a Trango. Were you able to get the Tlink to work with the Cisco, by hard setting the Cisco to a specific configuration? Its not a big deal IF a workign configuration can be discovered. Whats a problem is a solution that won't survive a reboot. For example with the ViaRhine MT cards, after a Atlas reboots, the Rhine NIC needs to be reset to autoneg the appropriate speed. Again a problem with the NIC not the radio. But it was annoying. But if I can hard set a port, and that will work, after a reboot all is good, then it jsut becomes a documentation issue. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Marty Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink-45 Review Thanks for the review Patrick. This message was sent from my Iphone Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc. 703-554-6620 (office) [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few weeks back I asked for opinions of the TrangoLink-45 radios. Since then I've installed two pairs and figured I'd share my experiences with the list. Physical design. The antenna and radio housing are solidly built and look like they will last. However, the mounting system is not as well designed as the rest of the radio. First, it is made of zinc plated steel, which I suspect will rust after a while. The mount uses a U- bolt to attach the radio to a pole. This is a problem because it makes it difficult to hold the radio in place and hand-tighten the nuts during installation. Since there is no hoist loop in the radio housing, you can't tie the radio off to the tower and use both hands to tighten the u-bolt. Also, the mount is specced to work with up to 3 diameter poles, but there is no way it will work on anything over 2. The telnet interface for radio configuration is simple and effective. Never having used a Trango radio before, it took me about 30 minutes to be completely comfortable with the radio setup and management interface. SNMP support looks
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
That is news.. Perhaps one day they will post it on their firmware page for all of us to enjoy? :) Patrick Shoemaker wrote: FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick Eric Muehleisen wrote: I see. We do the same in this case. If only Trango would implement vlan in their multipoint products, life would be easier. -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, each customer doesn't have a VLAN, only the special ones, then we install MikroTik usually. Basic Residential/Buisness applications are part of a untagged VLAN with Static IP addressing. Simple setup, but effective. -Cam Then how do you tag your customers after the CPE? Do you provide them with vlan capable switches? -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not 100% I always use my Procurve switches for the VLAN and leave the Trango as a dummy bridge. Cameron Midcoast Internet After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
Does anyone know what the actual HDX throughput would be with these Trango radios? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:51 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 We actually graph our pps usage with one of our Alvarion links. Granted Alvarion can do about 40,000 pps to Trango's 9000pps or so, but our primary link which handles dozens of VoIP calls and a sustanained 30mbit throuput has never peaked above 2200 pps. However, if you got the money to spend, go with the B100, you'll be happy. Otherwise, Trango 45 is for you. (can't comment about StarOS, never used it) Cameron Midcoast Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Similar in the way of price or features? B100 has been able to do VLAN tagging since day one and it also has QinQ. It also supports much higher pps and the capacity stays close to constant regardless of the traffic type -- that important for a backhaul link, especially in a world seeing more and more VoIP. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff - Home Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick --- - 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/ *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). *** * --- - 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
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
One of my links is set to 36 Mbps mode and gives 26 Mbps TCP Hdx, I have tested on bench the 54 MBps mode and it topped at 43 Mbps Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Does anyone know what the actual HDX throughput would be with these Trango radios? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:51 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 We actually graph our pps usage with one of our Alvarion links. Granted Alvarion can do about 40,000 pps to Trango's 9000pps or so, but our primary link which handles dozens of VoIP calls and a sustanained 30mbit throuput has never peaked above 2200 pps. However, if you got the money to spend, go with the B100, you'll be happy. Otherwise, Trango 45 is for you. (can't comment about StarOS, never used it) Cameron Midcoast Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Similar in the way of price or features? B100 has been able to do VLAN tagging since day one and it also has QinQ. It also supports much higher pps and the capacity stays close to constant regardless of the traffic type -- that important for a backhaul link, especially in a world seeing more and more VoIP. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff - Home Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick --- - 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/ *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). *** * --- - 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
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
We actually graph our pps usage with one of our Alvarion links. Granted Alvarion can do about 40,000 pps to Trango's 9000pps or so, but our primary link which handles dozens of VoIP calls and a sustanained 30mbit throuput has never peaked above 2200 pps. However, if you got the money to spend, go with the B100, you'll be happy. Otherwise, Trango 45 is for you. (can't comment about StarOS, never used it) Cameron Midcoast Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Similar in the way of price or features? B100 has been able to do VLAN tagging since day one and it also has QinQ. It also supports much higher pps and the capacity stays close to constant regardless of the traffic type -- that important for a backhaul link, especially in a world seeing more and more VoIP. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff - Home Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). 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] TrangoLINK-45
Gino, Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me what the link distance and signal level is as well as what kind of throughput at that distance and signal level? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 One of my links is set to 36 Mbps mode and gives 26 Mbps TCP Hdx, I have tested on bench the 54 MBps mode and it topped at 43 Mbps Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Does anyone know what the actual HDX throughput would be with these Trango radios? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:51 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 We actually graph our pps usage with one of our Alvarion links. Granted Alvarion can do about 40,000 pps to Trango's 9000pps or so, but our primary link which handles dozens of VoIP calls and a sustanained 30mbit throuput has never peaked above 2200 pps. However, if you got the money to spend, go with the B100, you'll be happy. Otherwise, Trango 45 is for you. (can't comment about StarOS, never used it) Cameron Midcoast Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Similar in the way of price or features? B100 has been able to do VLAN tagging since day one and it also has QinQ. It also supports much higher pps and the capacity stays close to constant regardless of the traffic type -- that important for a backhaul link, especially in a world seeing more and more VoIP. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff - Home Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick --- - 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/ *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(84). *** * --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
The link is about 6.5 Miles, using Pac Wireless 2' dual pol dishes. -53 signal on both ends. 26 Mbps TCP Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:30 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Gino, Thanks for the reply. Can you tell me what the link distance and signal level is as well as what kind of throughput at that distance and signal level? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 One of my links is set to 36 Mbps mode and gives 26 Mbps TCP Hdx, I have tested on bench the 54 MBps mode and it topped at 43 Mbps Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Does anyone know what the actual HDX throughput would be with these Trango radios? Thanks, Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cameron Kilton Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:51 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 We actually graph our pps usage with one of our Alvarion links. Granted Alvarion can do about 40,000 pps to Trango's 9000pps or so, but our primary link which handles dozens of VoIP calls and a sustanained 30mbit throuput has never peaked above 2200 pps. However, if you got the money to spend, go with the B100, you'll be happy. Otherwise, Trango 45 is for you. (can't comment about StarOS, never used it) Cameron Midcoast Internet -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Similar in the way of price or features? B100 has been able to do VLAN tagging since day one and it also has QinQ. It also supports much higher pps and the capacity stays close to constant regardless of the traffic type -- that important for a backhaul link, especially in a world seeing more and more VoIP. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff - Home Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 8:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick --- - 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/ *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(190). *** * *** * This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals computer viruses(43). *** * *** * This footnote
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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] TrangoLINK-45
You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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] TrangoLINK-45
I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 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] TrangoLINK-45
I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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] TrangoLINK-45
Due to windloading restrictions on one of the towers, I am limited to using the 23 dBi panel built into the TrangoLINK-45. I also would like to avoid the cost and hassle of external antennas if possible. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com John Scrivner wrote: I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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] TrangoLINK-45
Well, If you have plenty of room in 5.8ghz that should not be a probably. I have a 5.3 link running 8 miles with 2 foot dishes which was actually over kill with the signal level I got (within EIRP). I could have used the 23 dbi panels, but better safe than sorry. -Cameron Midcoast Internet http://www.midcoast.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Due to windloading restrictions on one of the towers, I am limited to using the 23 dBi panel built into the TrangoLINK-45. I also would like to avoid the cost and hassle of external antennas if possible. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com John Scrivner wrote: I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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] TrangoLINK-45
Except the cost of a B100 you can buy 3 Trango Link 45 units right now of course one could always stand here and argue the differences in equipment regarding trango and alvarion since I use both of them. Cameron Midcoast Internet BreezeNET B100s now support software selectable 10, 20 or 40 MHz channels. Also, they can be purchased as B28s than upgraded later via license key when capacity needs increase. Patrick Alvarion -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Another option is to Use Redline AN80 units in 5.8, where you can use 10 mhz channels to better squeeze the link between the Orthogons and Canopy Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, WISPA Wants
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
I'm not 100% I always use my Procurve switches for the VLAN and leave the Trango as a dummy bridge. Cameron Midcoast Internet After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, 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
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick Eric Muehleisen wrote: I see. We do the same in this case. If only Trango would implement vlan in their multipoint products, life would be easier. -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, each customer doesn't have a VLAN, only the special ones, then we install MikroTik usually. Basic Residential/Buisness applications are part of a untagged VLAN with Static IP addressing. Simple setup, but effective. -Cam Then how do you tag your customers after the CPE? Do you provide them with vlan capable switches? -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not 100% I always use my Procurve switches for the VLAN and leave the Trango as a dummy bridge. Cameron Midcoast Internet After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
Why not a certified full duplex StarOS x4000 $400, 2 ft dual pol dishes 300 plus tx and shipping = 800 per side or less. At that distance w/ cloaking smaller channel sizes should be a slam dunk. 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 Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well as some Canopy APs, which are all running in 5.7. The Canopy APs and Orthogon get along great together running in the same band- am I wrong assuming the Trango product will have good enough receiver selectivity to get along with the other equipment too? It will likely be run H-pol with the other stuff on v-pol (except the Orthogon which uses both polarities via MIMO). Thanks, -- Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.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] TrangoLINK-45
I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick Eric Muehleisen wrote: I see. We do the same in this case. If only Trango would implement vlan in their multipoint products, life would be easier. -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, each customer doesn't have a VLAN, only the special ones, then we install MikroTik usually. Basic Residential/Buisness applications are part of a untagged VLAN with Static IP addressing. Simple setup, but effective. -Cam Then how do you tag your customers after the CPE? Do you provide them with vlan capable switches? -Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not 100% I always use my Procurve switches for the VLAN and leave the Trango as a dummy bridge. Cameron Midcoast Internet After running the numbers, it does look like I can get some decent throughput out of this thing in 5.3 using the integrated antennas at 6.5 miles. Certainly better than the Canopy BH I'm using now. Another question: the sales page for the TrangoLINK-45 says it's VLAN aware, but there's no mention of VLAN configuration in the user manual. Is it possible to assign a VLAN to the management interface of these radios? Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Mike Hammett wrote: Responding to myself, I think the Orthogon can go to -7 and the Redline to -20 just for this purpose. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I have no documentation present, but people with Orthogon and Redline have said their products can use large antenna. In a PtMP environment, yes 2 - 3 miles is probably all you can get. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 I did not think you could legally run 3 foot parabolics in 5.3./ 5.4. Are there 3 foot dishes FCC certified with radios in 5.3 / 5.4? I would like to see a URL to data on these radio / antenna combinations. I had always believed the lower power limits of those bands pretty much meant they were only worth using in 2 or 3 mile shots. Please enlighten me. Scriv On Feb 19, 2008 3:17 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can go 10 - 15 miles within EIRP in 5.3\5.4 in a PtP configuration. I believe 10 miles is with a 3' dish. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Patrick Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 Oh yeah, one hop is 6.5 miles so 5.3/5.4 is out unfortunately. The other is 0.5 miles so I will probably run that in 5.3. There are a lot of weather radar towers around here that junk up 5.4. Patrick Shoemaker President, Vector Data Systems LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: (301) 358-1690 x36 mobile: (410) 991-5791 http://www.vectordatasystems.com Randy Cosby wrote: I've had some limited experience with them, and so far all is good. I'm using 5.4 channels, which is an added bonus for dealing with noisy canopy stuff. Fairly short hops though. Patrick Shoemaker wrote: I have two Motorola Canopy 20M backhauls running in 2.4 GHz that serve as redundant links between POPs. I am located in Maryland just outside of DC, and the 2.4 noise floor has crept high enough to require replacement of these backup links. I am looking at the TrangoLINK-45 radios to replace these and wanted to get some real-world feedback from anyone who is using this system. Any problems / bugs / known issues? They will be colocated with Orthogon PtP radios as well
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45
Patrick... Are you LISTENING too? :) Can we expect something similar from Alvarion? - Cliff On 2/19/08 9:39 PM, Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hear you Patrick. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLINK-45 FYI a sales rep from Trango just informed me that the TrangoLINK-45 has a newly released firmware that supports VLAN tagging on the management interfaces. It looks like this is what I'll be going with. Patrick, I'd love to use a B100 for this shot but a full link for under $2k is hard to pass up. After all, these are backup links that I would rather not dump a ton of money into. Patrick 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/
