Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile
So what kinds of distances are people currently going through trees, and what kinds of signals, CCQ, throughput, etc. are you seeing? I guess I'm looking for success stories. I need to sell this to the partners. I know it can be done, and I'm fairly confident it will work in this situation, but they aren't. I've found a few instances online of people going 1 mile with 5.8 through some trees and still pulling off a -65 and 20Mbps of throughput - this was PTP. I know 3.65Ghz is supposed to be somewhere between 2.4 and 5.8 in terms of tree penetration, but I'm thinking this might be a good place to use 3.65, simply because of the lack of noise. I have never worked with 900Mhz as of yet. This was our initial alternative, but there is the added cost of deployment - $160 for a LocoM900 vs $80 for a NanobridgeM2. Literally doubles our ROI. On 9/13/2010 3:58 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ *Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com * Email: gl...@hostmedic.com mailto:gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
I've been fighting trees since I got into the wireless business back in '97. IMHO, only lower frequencies will reliably serve a customer. I currently have a few customers with some trees and they complain it cuts out. It boils down to what quality of service you want to provide. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Nick White nwt...@tele-net.net wrote: So what kinds of distances are people currently going through trees, and what kinds of signals, CCQ, throughput, etc. are you seeing? I guess I'm looking for success stories. I need to sell this to the partners. I know it can be done, and I'm fairly confident it will work in this situation, but they aren't. I've found a few instances online of people going 1 mile with 5.8 through some trees and still pulling off a -65 and 20Mbps of throughput - this was PTP. I know 3.65Ghz is supposed to be somewhere between 2.4 and 5.8 in terms of tree penetration, but I'm thinking this might be a good place to use 3.65, simply because of the lack of noise. I have never worked with 900Mhz as of yet. This was our initial alternative, but there is the added cost of deployment - $160 for a LocoM900 vs $80 for a NanobridgeM2. Literally doubles our ROI. On 9/13/2010 3:58 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ *Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com * Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
At my house, I live in a hole with about ¾ mile of solid oak trees between me and the tower. 2.4Ghz in the late spring (meaning good, saturated leaves) I can run 4meg. When it rains, service will be spotty and sometimes drop. I would never install a customer in those conditions. We do have a few customers through trees, but with our noise floor here, we dont do much more than just a few trees at a pretty close proximity to our APs. I wouldnt even think about 5Ghz through trees at all. 3650 havent done anything through trees yet so I dont know. 900Mhz worked great for us for awhile but noise floor went too high and couldnt work around it so we pulled all our 900 equipment. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick White Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:50 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile So what kinds of distances are people currently going through trees, and what kinds of signals, CCQ, throughput, etc. are you seeing? I guess I'm looking for success stories. I need to sell this to the partners. I know it can be done, and I'm fairly confident it will work in this situation, but they aren't. I've found a few instances online of people going 1 mile with 5.8 through some trees and still pulling off a -65 and 20Mbps of throughput - this was PTP. I know 3.65Ghz is supposed to be somewhere between 2.4 and 5.8 in terms of tree penetration, but I'm thinking this might be a good place to use 3.65, simply because of the lack of noise. I have never worked with 900Mhz as of yet. This was our initial alternative, but there is the added cost of deployment - $160 for a LocoM900 vs $80 for a NanobridgeM2. Literally doubles our ROI. On 9/13/2010 3:58 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
Ive never deployed Canopy 900. Vendor materials say it will work at a 3 db C/I. Can you keep a solid connection w/ decent throughput at that ratio? Chris -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:05 PM To: n...@atomsplash.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile At my house, I live in a hole with about ¾ mile of solid oak trees between me and the tower. 2.4Ghz in the late spring (meaning good, saturated leaves) I can run 4meg. When it rains, service will be spotty and sometimes drop. I would never install a customer in those conditions. We do have a few customers through trees, but with our noise floor here, we dont do much more than just a few trees at a pretty close proximity to our APs. I wouldnt even think about 5Ghz through trees at all. 3650 havent done anything through trees yet so I dont know. 900Mhz worked great for us for awhile but noise floor went too high and couldnt work around it so we pulled all our 900 equipment. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick White Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:50 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile So what kinds of distances are people currently going through trees, and what kinds of signals, CCQ, throughput, etc. are you seeing? I guess I'm looking for success stories. I need to sell this to the partners. I know it can be done, and I'm fairly confident it will work in this situation, but they aren't. I've found a few instances online of people going 1 mile with 5.8 through some trees and still pulling off a -65 and 20Mbps of throughput - this was PTP. I know 3.65Ghz is supposed to be somewhere between 2.4 and 5.8 in terms of tree penetration, but I'm thinking this might be a good place to use 3.65, simply because of the lack of noise. I have never worked with 900Mhz as of yet. This was our initial alternative, but there is the added cost of deployment - $160 for a LocoM900 vs $80 for a NanobridgeM2. Literally doubles our ROI. On 9/13/2010 3:58 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3137 - Release Date: 09/15/10 14:34:00 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] Trees under half mile
About the only product that will work that low. What do you call decent throughput? I think 2x requires 6dbm. On Sep 16, 2010 3:40 PM, chris cooper ccoo...@intelliwave.com wrote: Ive never deployed Canopy 900. Vendor materials say it will work at a 3 db C/I. Can you keep a solid connection w/ decent throughput at that ratio? Chris -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]... No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3137 - Release Date: 09/15/10 14:34:00 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] Trees under half mile
It will link in 1X mode at 3dB S/N and 2X at 10dB S/N. you need to maintain those levels so you need to add enough gain to deal with trees in the spring which tend to have the highest loss of the year. with that said, 900 MHz is a bad bet IMO. If you plan to roll out 900, you need to look at it one of two ways: 1. the noise is as bad as it's going to get (i.e. smart meters or other FHSS 900MHz system are rolled out) and you engineer around it. 2. you plan for a future noise floor of -60dB and engineer around that. - Jerry From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of chris cooper Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:43 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile Ive never deployed Canopy 900. Vendor materials say it will work at a 3 db C/I. Can you keep a solid connection w/ decent throughput at that ratio? Chris -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hensley Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:05 PM To: n...@atomsplash.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile At my house, I live in a hole with about ¾ mile of solid oak trees between me and the tower. 2.4Ghz in the late spring (meaning good, saturated leaves) I can run 4meg. When it rains, service will be spotty and sometimes drop. I would never install a customer in those conditions. We do have a few customers through trees, but with our noise floor here, we don't do much more than just a few trees at a pretty close proximity to our AP's. I wouldn't even think about 5Ghz through trees at all. 3650 - haven't done anything through trees yet so I don't know. 900Mhz worked great for us for awhile but noise floor went too high and couldn't work around it so we pulled all our 900 equipment. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Nick White Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 10:50 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile So what kinds of distances are people currently going through trees, and what kinds of signals, CCQ, throughput, etc. are you seeing? I guess I'm looking for success stories. I need to sell this to the partners. I know it can be done, and I'm fairly confident it will work in this situation, but they aren't. I've found a few instances online of people going 1 mile with 5.8 through some trees and still pulling off a -65 and 20Mbps of throughput - this was PTP. I know 3.65Ghz is supposed to be somewhere between 2.4 and 5.8 in terms of tree penetration, but I'm thinking this might be a good place to use 3.65, simply because of the lack of noise. I have never worked with 900Mhz as of yet. This was our initial alternative, but there is the added cost of deployment - $160 for a LocoM900 vs $80 for a NanobridgeM2. Literally doubles our ROI. On 9/13/2010 3:58 PM, Glenn Kelley wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.comhttp://www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.commailto:gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgmailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3137 - Release Date: 09/15/10 14:34:00 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
Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 10:57 PM, Jeromie wrote: Sorry, when ever people talk about mesh they most often mean 1 radio meshing. First-generation mesh networks with one radio were awful. I didn't think that was what Greg had in mind. Second-generation mesh networks separated the backhaul (meshing) from the user access, and worked better. I actually like to use mesh in its original sense, to refer to a network with an arbitrary topology allowing multiple links per node. It contrasts with star and ring. A mesh is thus a redundant network. The Internet is a mesh. SPF is a meshing protocol, as is distance vector. Wifi is not well suited to the lower layer software. It works, but the radios just were not designed for it. I have been doing multi radio 'mesh' since I started using wifi based gear over canopy. Multiradio relays generally do not benefit from most of the mesh software. Depends on the software, but you may be right with some of the freeware mesh software designed for home routers running DD-WRT et al. OSPF or rSTP works very well and are generally stable and are generally supported and have many tools. OSPF operates in IP. I'm trying to do everything at a lower layer than that. What layer are you doing your routing at? RSTP works but is still fundamentally stupid; spanning tree just avoids loops, but doesn't optimize. I did not say it did. There are places to use it, like when you have a end point that can see 2 AP's and failover as needed. If those AP's are only connected to a switch rstp can be used to disable a port (ill need to find the script, it was not pretty nor was used long) When the mesh gets complex, you want real routing capabilities. I just have reasons to avoid doing this in IP. Why do you want to avoid the IP layer? The radios while can pass what ever traffic, are inherently IP devices and switch slowly enough that speed does not seam like the driving factor. But bridging is just a bad LAN hack too; it doesn't scale to the radio world. I remember when we introduced Ethernet bridges at DEC, somewhere around 1985. It sounded like a good idea at the time. But a few years later, the head of network archicture quipped, Networks are a drug. Bridged networks are a dangerous drug. Of course that was shortly before some Microsoft-worshipping IT types started pushing big bridged multi-site LAN Manager networks... At what lower layer? Unless you are changing out the protocol on the wireless layer its still wifi and still has the limits of wifi. NStream might work better for this. Bridging is a tool, like all tools when used poorly, is called a poor tool. I keep everything off the radio I possibly can and use them as bridges with a router behind them. With Mt having $40 units that is even easier and faster then ever. I agree that this is a good idea. I am likely to do some radios as cards plugged into the RB, like the SR71-15s which look really good. But the access points and some links will be separate, on Ethernet. Besides, the Ethernet RocketM sectors look better than anything MT has. The specs are pretty close but the scuttlebutt on the boards is that the UBNT cards outperform the R52HNs. I have completely dropped all wireless that is not Ubnt based (well other then the gear I have not had time to swap and the indoor ap's). A site can now have up to 6 AP's between 2.4 and 5ghz and link to a number of other sites. OSPF works well here. Self interference is still the biggest issue. I have a site 15 miles out, with a ap pointed 70* off. Using the Ubnt specan, I can see a few db noise rise (goes away when I have that ap powered down). All of my R52's (not Ns) died or went into a super spew mode with lots of noise. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 09:23 PM, you wrote: With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. What do you mean by real relays? A mesh or routed network or whatever you want to call it is a set of relays. I may be missing out on what you mean by the term, though; I use it generically. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if
Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile
At 9/14/2010 02:59 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: ... First-generation mesh networks with one radio were awful. I didn't think that was what Greg had in mind. Second-generation mesh networks separated the backhaul (meshing) from the user access, and worked better. I actually like to use mesh in its original sense, to refer to a network with an arbitrary topology allowing multiple links per node. It contrasts with star and ring. A mesh is thus a redundant network. The Internet is a mesh. SPF is a meshing protocol, as is distance vector. Wifi is not well suited to the lower layer software. It works, but the radios just were not designed for it. I have been doing multi radio 'mesh' since I started using wifi based gear over canopy. I agree about WiFi. But I don't think of Ethernet radios as WiFi. Sure, they use Atheros chips that were designed for WiFi, and the 11n modulation techniques, but WiFi to me means LAN, with all of that ugly contention and hidden transmitter stuff. I just want cheap radios, with a WAN-oriented contention protocol like Airmax or an Nstreme. Alas, no standards or interoperabiilty there... at least not yet. So if I treat the radios as PtP links in the mesh topology and let the software find a path across multiple hops, it should work. Bits is bits, after all. I am not doing anything with broadcast topology subnetworks, to use the good old ISO term that covered orange-hose Ethernet, RIP. Even the shared sectors will be functionally PtP, just muxed onto one radio. Multiradio relays generally do not benefit from most of the mesh software. Depends on the software, but you may be right with some of the freeware mesh software designed for home routers running DD-WRT et al. OSPF or rSTP works very well and are generally stable and are generally supported and have many tools. OSPF operates in IP. I'm trying to do everything at a lower layer than that. What layer are you doing your routing at? The mesh will run at layer 2, meaning a layer below IP. Here's a place where the wireless vendors are a few years behind the fiber vendors. In the fiber world, there's a lot of SONET around, great old TDM technology, but for non-TDM applications the hot thing is Carrier Ethernet, as defined by the Metro Ethernet Forum. This basically shares one thing with the real Ethernet, the name! Carrier Ethernet is essentially Frame Relay at Ethernet speeds, using Ethernet frameing. It uses the VLAN tags, not MACs, and while there is a LAN Emulation PtMP mode, and it can use RSTP, it is switching, not bridging. This isn't rocket science and I'd love to see it cleanly implemented in RouterOS (Level 4 and up). MAC bridging has no place outside of the pure LAN. RSTP works but is still fundamentally stupid; spanning tree just avoids loops, but doesn't optimize. I did not say it did. There are places to use it, like when you have a end point that can see 2 AP's and failover as needed. If those AP's are only connected to a switch rstp can be used to disable a port (ill need to find the script, it was not pretty nor was used long) Yes, for a very simple case, it's fine. The network I'm designing needs a few dozen nodes; the paths are opportunistic (i.e., too many hills and trees). When the mesh gets complex, you want real routing capabilities. I just have reasons to avoid doing this in IP. Why do you want to avoid the IP layer? Not all traffic needs to be IP. I don't particularly like IP. It was great fun in the 1980s but I don't use MS-DOS any more either. Routing is impacted by IP's flaws, so I'd rather minimize IP routing and treat it as an application-support layer, as payload. A replacement for IP is one of my ongoing projects. (And I just say no to IPv6 -- tastes worse, more filling!) The radios while can pass what ever traffic, are inherently IP devices Not really. They are layer 2 frame relaying devices. They can have IP routing turned on in software, but it's optional. and switch slowly enough that speed does not seam like the driving factor. But bridging is just a bad LAN hack too; it doesn't scale to the radio world. I remember when we introduced Ethernet bridges at DEC, somewhere around 1985. It sounded like a good idea at the time. But a few years later, the head of network archicture quipped, Networks are a drug. Bridged networks are a dangerous drug. Of course that was shortly before some Microsoft-worshipping IT types started pushing big bridged multi-site LAN Manager networks... At what lower layer? Unless you are changing out the protocol on the wireless layer its still wifi The physical layer shares modulation with WiFi but those Atheros chips are really just relaying frames; as noted above WiFi is the local area application, while UBNT et al stretch them into being wide-area Ethernet relays. and still has the limits of wifi. NStream might work better for this.
Re: [WISPA] Trees under half mile
3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
900 won't do 10 megs. Get on the tower with a Ubiquiti and the dual pol panels (powerbridge?) and put up an omni or sector with 2.4 or 5. Depending on terrain all subs under a mile should be fine. On Sep 13, 2010 6:58 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than _ *Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com * Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
Would this be a good application for a mesh network? The towers feeding the town from both sides, and a mesh through out town? Greg On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Nick White wrote: Hi All, I've got a small town that is literally a 1 mile x 1 mile square. I have two towers, one is North, 10 miles from the town, the other is East, 11 miles from the town. This town is heavily covered by trees. Most customers thus far have no LOS to either tower, or are skimming the tops/sides of trees. Fortunately I'm still able to pull off signals in the -62 to -80 RX range, using a NBM2 or NSM2 for CPE and Rocket M2 for AP. My RX signals at the AP are -69 to -84. I have the possibility to put repeater APs on a radio station tower that is about 2 blocks from the middle of town - approximately 50' off the ground. From this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. Noise levels vary, but there is DSL in town, so a lot of people have wireless APs in-house. My worst noise level on a customer is -83, but they're using a NSM2 instead of NBM2. The customers with NBM2 are typically -100 to -104 noise. Right now I'm just looking for other's input on these kinds of repeater situations? Experience with trees? What signal levels through trees, under 1 mile distance? How about 5.8Ghz or 3.65Ghz? How about CCQ with trees? I would like to ultimately be able to provide 10+Mbps burstable service, as there is DSL in this town. 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] Trees under half mile
I have not seen mesh done on the cheap however but open to some ideas for sure On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: Would this be a good application for a mesh network? The towers feeding the town from both sides, and a mesh through out town? Greg On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Nick White wrote: Hi All, I've got a small town that is literally a 1 mile x 1 mile square. I have two towers, one is North, 10 miles from the town, the other is East, 11 miles from the town. This town is heavily covered by trees. Most customers thus far have no LOS to either tower, or are skimming the tops/sides of trees. Fortunately I'm still able to pull off signals in the -62 to -80 RX range, using a NBM2 or NSM2 for CPE and Rocket M2 for AP. My RX signals at the AP are -69 to -84. I have the possibility to put repeater APs on a radio station tower that is about 2 blocks from the middle of town - approximately 50' off the ground. From this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. Noise levels vary, but there is DSL in town, so a lot of people have wireless APs in-house. My worst noise level on a customer is -83, but they're using a NSM2 instead of NBM2. The customers with NBM2 are typically -100 to -104 noise. Right now I'm just looking for other's input on these kinds of repeater situations? Experience with trees? What signal levels through trees, under 1 mile distance? How about 5.8Ghz or 3.65Ghz? How about CCQ with trees? I would like to ultimately be able to provide 10+Mbps burstable service, as there is DSL in this town. 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/ _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
how about Ubiquti with Openmesh On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote: I have not seen mesh done on the cheap however but open to some ideas for sure On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote: Would this be a good application for a mesh network? The towers feeding the town from both sides, and a mesh through out town? Greg On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Nick White wrote: Hi All, I've got a small town that is literally a 1 mile x 1 mile square. I have two towers, one is North, 10 miles from the town, the other is East, 11 miles from the town. This town is heavily covered by trees. Most customers thus far have no LOS to either tower, or are skimming the tops/sides of trees. Fortunately I'm still able to pull off signals in the -62 to -80 RX range, using a NBM2 or NSM2 for CPE and Rocket M2 for AP. My RX signals at the AP are -69 to -84. I have the possibility to put repeater APs on a radio station tower that is about 2 blocks from the middle of town - approximately 50' off the ground. From this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. Noise levels vary, but there is DSL in town, so a lot of people have wireless APs in-house. My worst noise level on a customer is -83, but they're using a NSM2 instead of NBM2. The customers with NBM2 are typically -100 to -104 noise. Right now I'm just looking for other's input on these kinds of repeater situations? Experience with trees? What signal levels through trees, under 1 mile distance? How about 5.8Ghz or 3.65Ghz? How about CCQ with trees? I would like to ultimately be able to provide 10+Mbps burstable service, as there is DSL in this town. 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/ _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
Is there a way to do openmesh without having to give them revenue? On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:13 PM, Philip Dorr wrote: how about Ubiquti with Openmesh _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
I have a 'town' I have setup like that (just a large group of towns, they call it a village). A couple PowerStation2's fed from 5ghz covers it well. I also made a few key locations AP's. I take the clients AP's and make them switchs, disabling the wifi. Then add a name on my units for them to use. this helps reduce interference. When i do need to leave AP's I take control of them, turn the power down, etc. If they have not the option then I replace them. I maintain control of every device short of the end user pc/laptop. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Nick White nwt...@tele-net.net wrote: Hi All, I've got a small town that is literally a 1 mile x 1 mile square. I have two towers, one is North, 10 miles from the town, the other is East, 11 miles from the town. This town is heavily covered by trees. Most customers thus far have no LOS to either tower, or are skimming the tops/sides of trees. Fortunately I'm still able to pull off signals in the -62 to -80 RX range, using a NBM2 or NSM2 for CPE and Rocket M2 for AP. My RX signals at the AP are -69 to -84. I have the possibility to put repeater APs on a radio station tower that is about 2 blocks from the middle of town - approximately 50' off the ground. From this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. Noise levels vary, but there is DSL in town, so a lot of people have wireless APs in-house. My worst noise level on a customer is -83, but they're using a NSM2 instead of NBM2. The customers with NBM2 are typically -100 to -104 noise. Right now I'm just looking for other's input on these kinds of repeater situations? Experience with trees? What signal levels through trees, under 1 mile distance? How about 5.8Ghz or 3.65Ghz? How about CCQ with trees? I would like to ultimately be able to provide 10+Mbps burstable service, as there is DSL in this town. 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] Trees under half mile
I am unaware of the 99 limit. I actually have a set at 185 ft. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
I can ask our licensing guy - he had seemed for some reason to think this was the rule. Thanks for the heads up.. worth asking again @ least. I have a location I can use it now - (to get to my own home) - we are looking @ 290 foot - or want to @ least Thanks On Sep 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: I am unaware of the 99 limit. I actually have a set at 185 ft. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 13, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Glenn Kelley gl...@hostmedic.com wrote: 3.65 is limited in that you can only go as high as 99 feet I believe - someone will correct me if I am wrong. If you are using airmax - 2.4 should help 5ghz you may have some issues w/ trees however My suggestion is a mix - I noticed that you have not mentioned 900mhz 900 and trees especially at that distance - sub 1 mile is awesome - but doubt you will see the 10mbps speeds you wish. 5ghz is your best choice - if you can use it. setting up both 2.4 and 5ghz sectors may help - double the cost - but in the end - would allow you the most flexibility On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Nick White wrote: om this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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] Trees under half mile
Correction, large group of houses. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net wrote: I have a 'town' I have setup like that (just a large group of towns, they call it a village). A couple PowerStation2's fed from 5ghz covers it well. I also made a few key locations AP's. I take the clients AP's and make them switchs, disabling the wifi. Then add a name on my units for them to use. this helps reduce interference. When i do need to leave AP's I take control of them, turn the power down, etc. If they have not the option then I replace them. I maintain control of every device short of the end user pc/laptop. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Nick White nwt...@tele-net.net wrote: Hi All, I've got a small town that is literally a 1 mile x 1 mile square. I have two towers, one is North, 10 miles from the town, the other is East, 11 miles from the town. This town is heavily covered by trees. Most customers thus far have no LOS to either tower, or are skimming the tops/sides of trees. Fortunately I'm still able to pull off signals in the -62 to -80 RX range, using a NBM2 or NSM2 for CPE and Rocket M2 for AP. My RX signals at the AP are -69 to -84. I have the possibility to put repeater APs on a radio station tower that is about 2 blocks from the middle of town - approximately 50' off the ground. From this tower, no one in town would be more than .75 miles away. I'm thinking 10Mhz channels - 1, 6, 11. If we do this, I will likely use the UBNT shields that I've seen for sale with three 120deg sectors. Noise levels vary, but there is DSL in town, so a lot of people have wireless APs in-house. My worst noise level on a customer is -83, but they're using a NSM2 instead of NBM2. The customers with NBM2 are typically -100 to -104 noise. Right now I'm just looking for other's input on these kinds of repeater situations? Experience with trees? What signal levels through trees, under 1 mile distance? How about 5.8Ghz or 3.65Ghz? How about CCQ with trees? I would like to ultimately be able to provide 10+Mbps burstable service, as there is DSL in this town. 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] Trees under half mile
At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Trees under half mile
With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Trees under half mile
At 9/13/2010 09:23 PM, you wrote: With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. What do you mean by real relays? A mesh or routed network or whatever you want to call it is a set of relays. I may be missing out on what you mean by the term, though; I use it generically. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Trees under half mile
Backhauls? Greg On Sep 13, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 9/13/2010 09:23 PM, you wrote: With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. What do you mean by real relays? A mesh or routed network or whatever you want to call it is a set of relays. I may be missing out on what you mean by the term, though; I use it generically. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Trees under half mile
Sorry, when ever people talk about mesh they most often mean 1 radio meshing. Multiradio relays generally do not benefit from most of the mesh software. OSPF or rSTP works very well and are generally stable and are generally supported and have many tools. I keep everything off the radio I possibly can and use them as bridges with a router behind them. With Mt having $40 units that is even easier and faster then ever. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 09:23 PM, you wrote: With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. What do you mean by real relays? A mesh or routed network or whatever you want to call it is a set of relays. I may be missing out on what you mean by the term, though; I use it generically. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Trees under half mile
At 9/13/2010 10:57 PM, Jeromie wrote: Sorry, when ever people talk about mesh they most often mean 1 radio meshing. First-generation mesh networks with one radio were awful. I didn't think that was what Greg had in mind. Second-generation mesh networks separated the backhaul (meshing) from the user access, and worked better. I actually like to use mesh in its original sense, to refer to a network with an arbitrary topology allowing multiple links per node. It contrasts with star and ring. A mesh is thus a redundant network. The Internet is a mesh. SPF is a meshing protocol, as is distance vector. Multiradio relays generally do not benefit from most of the mesh software. Depends on the software, but you may be right with some of the freeware mesh software designed for home routers running DD-WRT et al. OSPF or rSTP works very well and are generally stable and are generally supported and have many tools. OSPF operates in IP. I'm trying to do everything at a lower layer than that. RSTP works but is still fundamentally stupid; spanning tree just avoids loops, but doesn't optimize. When the mesh gets complex, you want real routing capabilities. I just have reasons to avoid doing this in IP. But bridging is just a bad LAN hack too; it doesn't scale to the radio world. I remember when we introduced Ethernet bridges at DEC, somewhere around 1985. It sounded like a good idea at the time. But a few years later, the head of network archicture quipped, Networks are a drug. Bridged networks are a dangerous drug. Of course that was shortly before some Microsoft-worshipping IT types started pushing big bridged multi-site LAN Manager networks... I keep everything off the radio I possibly can and use them as bridges with a router behind them. With Mt having $40 units that is even easier and faster then ever. I agree that this is a good idea. I am likely to do some radios as cards plugged into the RB, like the SR71-15s which look really good. But the access points and some links will be separate, on Ethernet. Besides, the Ethernet RocketM sectors look better than anything MT has. The specs are pretty close but the scuttlebutt on the boards is that the UBNT cards outperform the R52HNs. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 09:23 PM, you wrote: With the low cost of Ubnt gear, why not run real relays? The area is small enough to not need a unreasonable amount of relays. What do you mean by real relays? A mesh or routed network or whatever you want to call it is a set of relays. I may be missing out on what you mean by the term, though; I use it generically. On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 9/13/2010 07:02 PM, you wrote: 900 won't do 10 megs. The new Ubiquiti M-series Airmax 900 MHz radios should do it. MCS10 in a 5 MHz quarter-channel is around 10 Mbps. A lower-loss path could allow MCS11 or MCS12. While you can't synchronize sectors, they look like they will outperform Canopy at a fraction of the price. Maybe they'll even ship this year. ;-) As to mesh, MT has HWMP+ as a layer 2 meshing protocol. It looks promising, though there has apparently been very little use of it in this hemisphere. But them I'm planning to do everything at layer 2, trying to build a switched network if I can (vs. bridged). BATMAN-Adv does a layer 2 mesh too, your basic open source code. I don't know anyone using that one either. This type of meshing is basically like routing, just operating below IP so it treats IP (or other protocols, hint hint) as payload and doesn't try to deal with IP addresses. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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/
