Change to Motorola Canopy ! ducking ! Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.767.7466
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532 I just installed a link using CM9, Station Server, WRAP board, about 300 yards away LOS, with only a single client so far on AP to SU mode. The radios associated at 54 mbps, and about -70 db, with a quality of 24/29. All speed enhancement features enable, and encryption turned off. Using Station server throughput test, testing from AP, the RX was 13.6 mbps, and the TX was 9.1 mbps. I thought that was odd, because I thought the TX would be faster. (AP to SU) This supported my estimates that 54 mbps Atheros card's top real throughput (for 54 mbps) was about 14 mbps, in a best case scenario. Then through in longer range links, interference, hidden node (or CTS/RTS to cure), retransmissions, heavy use links, and before you know real throughput can be much less than 10 mbps. Asumming of course Turbo Mode won't be used to hog up channels. My tech question is... Is this being limited by the Atheros chipset, or the WRAP motherboard? If using the Mikrotik RB532 board with higher processing speed, can a single Atheros card transfer at a higher rate? For those interested.... My business decission question is: 1) If Atheros can't go higher than 10 mbps in real world PtMP and... 2) Trango has fixed its short range packet loss problem (which they have) 3) Trango has new low pricing on Fox-D2 CPE (dropped $100 or so) 4) Trango has better testing tools 5) Trango avoids all the problems of 802.11 standard and home brew that cost ISPs aggrevations (accept large packets 1600b, pre-assembles, consistent availabilty, security, better remote management, ARQ, etc), What reason would there be to use anything but Trango broadband, even for small community projects? 802.11 Atheros gives you... 1) Mesh designs 2) Relay radio designs, multiple antennas/links per single unit, with only a $50 cost per radio card added. 3) HotSpot, compatible with laptops built-in config. 4) Built in VLAN switch, when used with Mikrotik RB532&daughter card. 5) OMNI support, when 6 sector design not needed. 6) One radio to stock, that supports ALL Freqs, for easy on the fly adaptabilty (pending antenna swap). #2 was good to reduce roof top colocation costs, by not needing to discuss the need to install two radios with a landlord for roof top approval. My recent interest, was for #4 and #5 for a small multi-building / multi-tenant complex. I reduce AP costs, by using only one AP w/ OMNI (OK for short range), apposed to Trango sector model. In a worse case scenario, where a Trango 60 degree, would cover all MTUs based on edge of complex placement, Mikrotik 802.11 would still save about $400 on the AP side. On the MTU side, I would normally pay $385 for 802.1q VLAN switch (24 port) for EACH building, apposed to $99 additional for Mikrotik RB daughter card (total of 9 ports including RB532). Many complexes have less than 8 subscribers per building. But if we use an example of a 4 building project, the savings for a VLAN switch would add up quick to around $1100, and adding simplicity with maintenance of only one device (the CPE/Router/VLAN combo) instead of two devices (VLAN switch and CPE Router). It also reduces costs for remote reboot devices, as the Mikrotik has a hardware watch dog, where as a typical VLAN switch would not. We use WDS to accomplish VLAN support. We use VLAN support for several reasons. 1) it protects end users from seeing other end users for security. 2) It allows us to more easilly centrally bandwidth manage and route via VLAN (per customer), apposed to paying attention to IPs and MACs which may have the need to change over time, or may not be known in advance. 3) Prevents customer's misconfigurations from effecting other users' links or router configs. Because the traffic doesn't cross paths, it can't conflict. The misconfigured client only gets effected. I will say, after all the time it has taken me to order, deploy, figure out how to configure, and wait for equipment stalling reocurring revenue, I'd argue I would have saved by just deploying Trango and VLAN switches to the project. Another problem, is that if VLAN is used, its no longer possible to use a Trango sector for both VLAN and non-VLAN customers at the same time, because large VLAN packets would get their would be no VLAN device on the Non-VLAN custoemrs to untag In summary... 1) If Trango would add a third external connector option to their 5830AP line, like the 900APs, it would drastically reduce the justification of home brew wifi, making it much more affordable to use Trango for these type projects. It still wouldn't fix the VLAN cost reductions, but then again so what. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 Current News > Level3 did it to themselves, Cogent customers didn't have the option to > hear Level 3's side of the story because LEVEL3 blocked us access from > reading their side, like idiots. They instead could have did port > redirection to pass our traffic to their web site our something. > Regardless of what anyone says, LEVEL3 could have handled this situation > by simply cutting off the pipe that was used for peering, but that is not > what they did. They weren't accepting route advertisements for Cogent > IPs. We could send data through diverse paths (other peers / ISPs), the > packets just never came back. LEVEL3 didn't block peering pipes, they > blocked routing info, in other words Cogent users. Cogent wasn't > technically capable to re-route our data becaue LEvel3's actions. People > leave out those little details of relavence, because they can't prove it > legally. But it is what happened. In my mind Level3 stinks bad in this > battle, because how they fought dirty. It had nothing to do with who was > actually at faught regarding whether Cogent should have free peering or > not. > > However, Level3 atleast did the honorable thing and will be restoring > service long enough for us to take action to add peers. But in my mind > they should have made that decission two days ago, before all the damage > was done to innocent providers and businesses such as MINE. We can sit > behind the scenes as individuals educated on the matter, and point fingers > at LEvel3 or Cogent. But in my customer's eyes the ONLY one responsible is > ME. I got a black eye on this, that will stay for some time, and I blaim > Level3. There actions were heartless on who it would effect. In my mind, > Level3 was inches away from serious law sutes. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:53 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cogent - Level3 Current News > > >> Level 3 Issues Ultimatum >> Restores connectivity to Cogent until Nov 9 >> >> Posted 2005-10-07 19:15:54 >> >> After restoring connectivity to Cogent this afternoon, Level 3 has now >> issued a press release (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/68244) >> explaining >> their side of the story >> (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051007/laf057.html?.v=17). "Despite more >> than >> 75 days of advance written notice of the termination of our agreement, >> Cogent apparently failed to notify its customers or make any business >> plans >> to prepare for disconnection," notes Sureel Choksi, executive vice >> president >> of Level 3 Communications. >> >> The restored peering arrangement won't last if Cogent isn't willing to >> negotiate, however. >> >> "Level 3 has, effective immediately, re-established a free connection to >> Cogent. In order to allow Internet users to make alternative >> arrangements, >> we will maintain this connection until 6:00 a.m. ET, November 9, 2005. >> The >> effectiveness of this arrangement of course depends on Cogent's >> willingness >> to maintain their side of the traffic exchange." >> >> >> Frank Muto >> Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA >> Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee >> http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: >> 10/6/2005 >> >> > > -- > 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 Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/123 - Release Date: 10/6/2005 > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
