Auto fall back is a good thing to use. If some interference comes up that will not allow a 5.5 link but will let a 2 link pass your 'non auto fall back' clients will just drop while the 'auto fall back' ones will just drop in speed. The time spent changing speeds is negligible. To keep speeds high for everyone, try not to mix week signals and strong signals on the same AP. The more 1mb connections on a single AP the slower for everyone.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Barber Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 2:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems Eje, I liked your explanation below. It makes sense to me but I was wondering about some of the tradeoffs. I don't really understand the Auto Fallback options provided in the AP vs. the client. We have been running all our radios with auto fallback disabled. Our reasoning was the AP and the client would both spend less time trying to negotiate an acceptable speed and could just get to the data transfer. We set all our AP's to allow 1, 2.2, 5.5, and 11 Mbs but we disable auto fall back on them. We then take a look at the quality of each client's link. If we have a really good link, we might set to 5.5 Mbs but we do not enable auto fallback on the client. If we have a marginal link, which we really try and avoid, we will set to 1 Mbs without auto fallback. We BW control at the NOC via Star-OS ensuring the maximum residential connection is 512k which even the 1 Mb setting in the radio should sustain. Our network seems pretty stable so we have been happy. Please point out any flaws in our logic. Please also explain how the auto fallback options in the client and AP's impact network performance. i.e. if auto fallback is disabled on the AP it's disable period or if you set it in the client it will still try and negotiate. I can definitely see the major advantage of running everything at the highest Mbs would the ability of the AP to support more clients because it can get each transaction done faster. Thanks in advance for any enlightenment you can share. SB Techs please feel free to chip in on this. Todd Barber Skylink Broadband Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] 970-454-9499 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:32 PM To: Colorado Wisp Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW> Hmm, CW> We talked with Smart Bridges back in January in Denver and they suggested CW> this setup. We have a YDI BCU and it works great, thanks for the MicroTik CW> sales pitch. I apprecitate you calling us dumb, thanks, but maybe SB should CW> jump in here and answer the question about everyone sharing a 1Mbps pipe, CW> you are trying to tell me that the radio cannot handle more than one CPE at CW> a time, that is not what they have been telling the list... I'm in no ways calling anyone dumb. Glad you have a YDI BCU every WISP should have and NEED to have SOME sort of bandwidth controller. Be it a YDI BCU, Packeteer, MikroTik, Star-OS or simply a Linux box with CBQ or a FreeBSD with dummynet. If you would come to me to get one I would promote the MikroTik box since that is what I sell.. To use the speed settings the radio is set to talk to as bandwidth controller now that is dumb because that only shows that one haven't entirely understood how the radios operate and that was why I chimmed up to make sure that nobody was doing such a dumb thing. We all started out learning things at one point and if nobody teach you how things really are or tell you it it's easy to think things work differently then they really do. I been there ones myself learning how things works. To tell the truth when I started out doing wireless this was the very same way I THOUGHT about doing bandwidth control to the clients but then I got to understand what that setting really meant and what the effect of it was and then I quickly throwed that idea out in the garbage where it belonged. I learned to understand how things really was working and I simply want to help others avoid doing dumb and silly mistake. Yes in a way a radio can not handle more then one CPE at a time. It's doing things in sequential. One at a time. Just like a cashier at a supermarket. You use only a single radio channel and only one person can talk on that channel at a time. Just like a CB radio or any other radio device. If you have 3 walkie talkies only one can speak at the same time. If the guy that speaks take forever to get done talking that means that the fast talker will get less time to speak since he have to wait so much longer before he can speak. CW> We have several customer 6+ miles away and they will only run at 1Mbps so CW> doesn't that mean all of the "20mph people" are going to get run over by the CW> "220mph people" and as a result have degraded service? They all might as CW> well have the same service level. No not quit but pretty close. When a 20mph customer is speaking the AP is running in 1Mbit mode which forces all 220mph people to run in 20mph as well. They will simply have to slow down and wait for their turn. However IF the 20mph person is NOT driving on the road (not transmitting any data) then your 220mph people can go at full speed. But as soon as the 20mph person start sending data then entire cell will slow down to 1Mbit speeds. The radio is NOT capable of doing multiple speeds at the SAME same (simultaneously) but it can sure switch between the different speeds but the switching is not instantantoiously. Best way to find this out for yourself is to associate 2 clients to a AP. Force one client radio to ONLY speak at 1Mbit and allow the other client radio to run at 1,2,5.5,11Mbit and then start a continously stream of data (say streaming media or a large download) on your 1Mbit client now try to do a ftp download or other speed test with your other client and see what speeds you get.. You will notice that you will not get any better then 1Mbit speed (well actually half since you share the 1Mbit with the other client).. Now for fun try to lock one of your clients into 11Mbit only and the other at 1Mbit only and do the same test and see the disastrous results you will get. CW> SB, please clarify this... Nothing for SB to clarify really it's a matter of physics and how the wireless works. To give you a other example. Say if your client would send A at 1Mbit compared to other speeds. Speed Period in time (seconds) 1Mbit " A " 2Mbit " A A " 5.5Mbit "A A A A " 11Mbit "AAAAAAAAAAA" In 1Mbit you will only be able to send 1Mbit per second. So say in a given time period you can only send one A. When you run at 2Mbit you can send twice the amount of data in the same time period. So you can send 2 A's in the same time it takes the 1Mbit guy to send a single A. In 11Mbit you can send 11 A's in the same time period as the 1Mbit client can send a single A. Now if your 1Mbit client is sending data then for X seconds your airwaves are filled with 1Mbit worth of data. So during this time the 11Mbit client can not speak because the airwaves are occupied.. If your 1Mbit client speak for 20sec out of a entire minute then this have eaten up 1/3 of of the 11Mbit clients possible air time. So this means that the 11Mbit clients can only send data at max speed for 2/3 of the time which means he did not achive 11Mbit speeds. Lesson learned try to get all customers on a single cell to run at 11Mbit or 5.5Mbit speeds to be able to get max throughput on your cell for your clients. If you have clients far away that can only get 1Mbit signal you should consider if possible get them a stronger radio (say a 200mw radio) or bigger antenna (24dB grid unless they already have it) or better LOS if they don't have good LOS already.. If your clients are only getting 1Mbit signal then they are very close to not getting any signal and you really should consider using larger antenna, stronger radio or higher mast pole. If none of these works because your client is so far away then you should either create a second cell for just these clients preferably closer to the clients or simply put them on a different AP then your closer in clients.. But just to give you a somewhat correlation of distance and radio power etc.. http://www.fament.com/wireless/calculators/simple_som.php?frequency=2400 &distance=10&rxsensitivity=-85&txpower=17&txloss=1&txgain=24&rxgain=8&rx loss=1&SOMcalc=Calc Client 10 Miles away. Using a aB which means 17dB radio with -85 receive sensitivity for 11Mbit signal and figure 1dB cable loss and a 24dB grid and a 8dB omni on the AP side with 1dB cable loss before the APPo. IF you have enough clear line of sight a client 10 Miles away should about 7.8dB signal fade margin to the 11Mbit signal limit. Which should be plenty enough to sustain a 11Mbit signal with some occasional dips down to 5.5Mbit. It's all math and physics. - Eje CW> -----Original Message----- CW> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW> On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson CW> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:55 PM CW> To: Colorado Wisp CW> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW> Your setting the data rate to 1 Mbps to offer a 512k service ? Now that CW> isn't very good nor smart. This means that your entire cell NEVER runs any CW> faster then 1Mbps. ALL your customers are sharing 1Mbps. CW> Don't use the radio speed settings as a bandwidth throttle mechanism get a CW> bandwidth shaper. Get a MikroTik box or a YDI BCU or something but by george CW> do not set the radio speed to 1Mbit as a way of bandwidth throttle your CW> clients... That is a waste of radiowaves.. CW> I do sell MikroTik routers and bandwidth controllers so I'm somewhat biased CW> but whatever you do don't do what you do today get yourself a real bandwidth CW> shaper from me or from anyone else.. CW> Because I hope you do understand by setting the data rate to 1Mbps means you CW> limit ALL your clients to run at a TOTAL of 1Mbps (not 1Mbps per client to CW> the AP but 1Mbps for ALL clients). CW> Think of it as a single file road. If the speed limit is 20mph then only so CW> many cars can pass a certain stretch of the road in any given time period CW> (your 1Mbit setting). Now if you up the speed limit to 40mph (2Mbit setting) CW> still single file road then twice as many cars CW> (bytes) can be pass through on your road. CW> If you up to 110mph (5.5Mbit) then you can now pass 5.5 times amount of cars CW> in the same time period as on the 20mph single file road (more bytes can be CW> uploaded or downloaded in the same time period). Now lets go all the way and CW> do 11Mbit or 220mph.. Still single file road (you only use one frequency to CW> talk to your clients).. CW> Best regards, CW> Eje Gustafsson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW> The Family Entertainment Network http://www.fament.com CW> Phone : 620-231-7777 Fax : 620-231-4066 CW> - Your Full Time Professionals - CW> Online Store http://www.wisp-router.com/ CW> PACWireless Antennas Distributor - MikroTik OEM CW> -- CW>> Hi, CW>> I have not followed the entire thread, but here is what we set the CW>> aB CPE CW>> at: CW>> Frag Threshold: 1066 CW>> RTS Threshold: 256 CW>> IP of the CPE is static private (192.168.5.X), full class c subent CW>> and 0.0.0.0 for the gateway. Data rate is set at 1 Mbps. We only CW>> offer 512 service, so no need to run any higher. CW>> Our APPO are set at: CW>> Fragmentation: 2346 CW>> RTS/CTS: 2346 CW>> All data rates are checked on the APPO, static private IP... CW>> Could your problem be that the CPE radios are connecting a different CW>> speeds and the APPO is always busy changing data rates to talk to CW>> the various CPEs? CW>> Try that... CW>> Chris CW>> --- CW>> Colorado WISP llc. http://www.cowisp.net CW>> Bringing high speed internet to rural communities. CW>> P.O. Box 55 CW>> Wellington, Colorado 80549 CW>> 970-218-5295 CW>> -----Original Message----- CW>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>> On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless CW>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:01 PM CW>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CW>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>> I also forgot to mention I throttled the one big user down to CW>> 100kbps and same think its like it has a hold on the APPO at 11 megs CW>> (5.5) and wont let anything else talk to it?? CW>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>> From: "Blazen Wireless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:59 PM CW>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>> Okay this slow down is really killing me I have all users turned off CW> that CW>> appear to be sending any kind of arp but this was not what was causing CW> the CW>> slowdowns. I have two users on right now one downloading at 700kbps and CW> the CW>> other one my slow customer just trying to surf and cant due it due to CW> ping CW>> rates we beyond out of control 300-400 and packet loss. CW>> I turn off the one customer who is downloading and the problem resolves. CW> I CW>> called the customer downloading and they are doing Microsoft patches on CW>> their machines right now so its not a virus. What gives why can one CW> person CW>> not taking up the full bandwidth screw the whole system I mean every one CW>> else is at a dead stand still?? CW>> To me this is a problem in the radio APPO not being able to talk to two CW>> radios at the same time at two different speeds this thing is totally CW> just CW>> sh**ing all over itself? CW>> Anyone else see this happen I had the APPO set to 1 meg only 2 meg and CW> 5.5 CW>> and also 11 but nothing seems to help! I have RTS set to 800 on the CW> clients CW>> and that made no difference I give up this customer wants me to come CW> pull CW>> the equipment.. CW>> Any ideas? CW>> HELP! CW>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:02 PM CW>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems CW>> This can get tricky. You need to be on a port that sees all of the CW> traffic CW>> - read that as 'not a switch port'. By definition a switch will only CW> show CW>> you packets destined for your computer. CW>> If you really want to see what going on you need a hub or a managed CW> switch CW>> that can replicate all traffic onto a port. CW>> Another option is to use a wireless card in promiscious mode - a mode CW> where CW>> you see all of the traffic. Ethereal will do this with (I think) most CW>> common wireless cards. CW>> Mark Radabaugh CW>> Amplex CW>> (419) 720-3635 CW>> ----- Original Message ----- CW>> From: "Pascal Losier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CW>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:41 PM CW>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> Just a small question, >>> >>> When running ethereal, Do you run it directly on the router >>> (ex.Mikrotik) or on any system connected to the router. >>> >>> Also does it matter if the system running ethereal is log via PPPOE >>> ???? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:12 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> HAHA well then my router has the virus I get like over 2000 arp >>> request from the router in less then 20 min which I think is way out >>> of control it always is asking who has what IP etc. I was told this is >>> normal in order for the router to know what IP has what mac etc.. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:15 PM >>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> A WHOLE bunch of arp requests. If you run ethereal, you would see >>> upwards of 30 or 40% ARP requests. Some of the viruses cause ARP >>> storms. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:09 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> What do you mean check arp I know how to check it but what am I >>> looking for?? >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:37 AM >>> Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> Check ARP. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:17 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> I have done that already and there is no ICMP other then me pinging >>> the radios It doesn't happen when there is no one online it only >>> happens when a few close users get on and start to surf and then the >>> far users have a hard time with dropped packets and slow speeds and >>> high pings. I just thing I need to open up another AP closer to them >>> and keep my distance down to under 5 miles. The one person having the >>> hardest time is about 5.6 miles which is closer then my 7.2 mile >>> customer who is doing great and pointed at the same radio APPO. It >>> might just be this person is in a bad area with more interference is >>> what I am thinking and I also may need to raise her ant a smidge.. >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 11:47 AM >>> Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> >>> >>> Every time I've experienced interference (numerous times), it hasn't >>> affected ping times. From what I've seen, it usually causes lost >>> packets, but not high latency. I don't know if anyone has mentioned >>> this before (I jumped in in the middle of this thread), but what >>> you're describing sounds exactly like something I experienced a few >>> weeks ago. I had about six users with the Welchia virus, and they were >>> causing high latency all over the network. If you haven't done it >>> already, put a packet sniffer on the network, and see if you're seeing >>> a lot of icmp echo traffic. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> Quoting Blazen Wireless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> > Well maybe this is not the problem now I am back to the same issues >>> > pings up to over 100ms and it seems now more with radios that never >>> > had problems before I am thinking more of interference now? How many >>> > of you have seen a drastic increase in SOHO wireless routers popping >>> > up on your site survey tab when setting up a customer, I s**t you >>> > not one the other day had 11 >>> that >>> > all >>> > said linksys or the default ssid for dlink stuff. Are those >>> manufacturers >>> > within spec it seems more and more are popping up and some with >>> > better >>> >>> > signal then my tower according to the site survey numbers in the ABO >>> /ABI >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Scott Damron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:07 AM >>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> > >>> > >>> > Actually, it does not really drop everyone down to 1meg, it just >>> > _MAY_ >>> >>> > slow down the 11meg folks in order to respond to the 1meg person. >>> > Hope >>> >>> > that makes sense. >>> > >>> > Scott >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Wirefree >>> > Network >>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:08 AM >>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> > >>> > >>> > Huh!??!? This seems bass ackwards. If one client associates at 1 >>> > Meg, it drops everyone down to that speed. Not the other way >>> > around. Weakest link theory. If a client can not associate at 11 >>> > Meg and steps it's way down to 1 Meg, then it CAN NOT be forced to >>> > connect at 11 Meg. However, a client who is close in with 100% RSSI, >>> > could be stepped down to 1 Meg based on some far out client. >>> > >>> > Sully >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless >>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:56 PM >>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Subject: Re: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> > >>> > I have throttling in place now thats not the issue. The issue is in >>> > my >>> >>> > opinion and theory is at what rate the radios associate at.. If they >>> > are only associating at 1 meg or less then yes you will have >>> > throughput problems, if I have all my close customers able to >>> > associate at 11 megs >>> > (5.5) and my furthest customers only at 1 meg ( 500kbps) then the >>> > further users are not going to be able to associate at 1 meg but >>> > will >>> be >>> > forced to associate at 11 megs and since that is not a stable link >>> they >>> > will suffer as I kind of proved tonight but cant be 100% sure unless >>> > I >>> >>> > could verify what speed the users radios are associating at to the >>> > AP. >>> >>> > In theory the AP cant be associated to 3 to 4 radios all at >>> > different speeds. They will be associated at the speed of the >>> > slowest radio or >>> the >>> > fastest depending on what radio has the best link I think? >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: Vasu (sB Tech Team) >>> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:27 PM >>> > Subject: RE: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> > >>> > That's the basics of 802.11 std, when one user hogs the entire >>> > bandwidth the remaining users have to share the bandwidth, hence >>> > bandwidth throttling is important to ensure good and stable links to >>> > all users, I think the XO series access point should solve your >>> > problem which can provide dedicated bandwidth to every user. >>> > >>> > Vasu >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blazen Wireless >>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:02 PM >>> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >>> > Subject: [smartBridges] Slow down problems >>> > >>> > Okay I think I have figured out the problem with my system. It seems >>> > that when users are one (close users) they are associated to the >>> > APPO at 5.5 to 11 megs possibly and the users that are further away >>> > are at 1 meg max well if you have the near users at 11 megs tying up >>> > the radio and the far uses cant connect at a slower speed for a >>> > better link / speed quality then the far users suffer? am I correct >>> > in my theory does that make any sense? >>> > >>> > So going forward we are going to have to plan some more sites closer >>> > to the users having issues etc Has anyone else experienced this. I >>> > cant verify 100% that this is true due to the fact the radios don't >>> > report what speed they are associated at? Can someone think of a way >>> > to validate this theory?? >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > Martin & Steve >>> > Blazen Wireless >>> > www.blazenwireless.com >>> > >>> > >>> > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> > >>> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> > smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > (in >>> >>> > the body type unsubscribe >>> > smartBridges) >>> > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> > >>> > >>> > ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> > Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> > http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> > >>> > The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> > To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges >>> > <yournickname> >>> > To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe >>> > smartBridges) >>> > Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe >>> smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe >>> smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe >>> smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe >>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in >>> the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- >>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV >>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm >>> >>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List >>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>> smartBridges <yournickname> >>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe CW>> smartBridges) >>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org >>> CW>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in CW> the CW>> body type unsubscribe CW>> smartBridges) CW>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW>> smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in CW> the CW>> body type unsubscribe smartBridges) CW>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>> ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- CW>> Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV CW>> http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm CW>> The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List CW>> To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe CW> smartBridges <yournickname> CW>> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe CW> smartBridges) CW>> Archives: http://archives.part-15.org CW>> -- CW>> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] -- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org ----------ANNOUNCEMENT---------- Don't forget to register for WISPCON IV http://www.wispcon.info/us/wispcon-iv/wispcon-iv.htm The PART-15.ORG smartBridges Discussion List To Join: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type subscribe smartBridges <yournickname> To Remove: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (in the body type unsubscribe smartBridges) Archives: http://archives.part-15.org
