Tom DeReggi wrote:

No the problem with Mesh is it adds many hops to the path, therefore adding significant latency, and inability to control QOS, or identify where the QOS lies. Self interference is impossible to avoid without killing every other in town at the same time.

QoS is easy with mesh, you jsut gotta pick your software well. Its very easy to identify where QoS is at. Self interferance is also
very easy to avoid (no 400mw cards on 10db omnis ok? thats a no no)



routing...


Well that brings nother issues up. Adding complexity where it is not needed in many cases. There is reliabity added by doing it at layer2. Fewer compenent to fail and manage. There is a benefit to centralized management and configuration, when scaling large projects. When end users have routers at the DMarc, there is often little need to route, as the path is rarely peer to peer in nature, and all tend to follow the path to backbone. Not that I'm not saying Routing doesn;t have its importance to be implemented at the right strategic places. Its jsut not needed every hop along the path. There are automated routing tasks like RIP and OSPF, or simlar, but its awefully risky allowing route advertizing to the front edge of ones network, or the consumer radio to have the abilty to advertise routes. Layer2 virtual circuits and VPN, are also often adequate solution to solve problems of deployment.

RIP is just plain evil to use unless its for a end use LAN only. OSPF only works for mesh when your urnning 3+ radios/node. There is nothing wrong with your client hardware helping with routes <as long as you control the hardware>. Central control is nice and works well. So does micro managing when you do it in centralized way (central server, all nodes request updated info every X hours or its pushed when a change is
made)



The Super cell gives the ISP better central control and simplicity.

Define better and what central/non centralized configuration setups you are comparing.



Mesh has its purpose, but as a last resort in my opinion. When a Super cell is unable to reach the clientel. But I'd argue many samll repeater cells is a better way to go, so reliabilty and shortest path can be engineered into every site. When paths from point A to point B change automatically, its difficult to loose control of performance levels an individual may have at one point in time over another. QOS is near impossible to guarantee on MESH. I look at MESH as a Best effort service, and it should be deployed only when thatlevel of service isrequired. Reliability and QOS is all about creating shortest number of hops, with most direct solid links. Just my opinion. We'll see what the Muni Mesh network brings to the table after their many future case studies to come. Its the Mesh companies that are the ones pushing it,and in their eye. The reason has to do with assets not technology. Muni's don;t own the roof tops and towers. They own the street poles. Mesh works from the Street poles. MESH is a way to intiate a project, without third parties getting in the way. The Muni controls the assets required for the Technology to pull off its job. Its building management companies and owners that control the expansion of Broadband in the Super Cell.

Muni has two choices... Go Mesh, or partner with the Local WISP, that already own the rights to the roof tops and spectrum, toguarantee quick progress. There are some exceptions to this, as many Muni's control water towers, if they are strategically located.

Mesh also works from non pole setups. Muni pole setups should use multi radio overlapping stars for the mesh, not single radio mesh. Mesh can have QoS its not a open buffet. Anyone deploying in the ISM/UNII bands is a "best effort" service. 3650 and licensed is the way out of "best effort" land.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment


I guess you'll have to learn more about Mesh because if you did you
would not say that a dedicated backhaul and microcell approach gives
the same functionality.  Sure a dedicated backhaul and microcell are
fine because that is what people have been building since forever.

Mesh handles routing issues and requires routed networks.  Is that the
problem you see?

Lonnie

On 2/23/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

First off, don't. Mesh is all the rage today. Just like hotspots were a
couple of years ago.  Mesh and muni are often rolled out in the same
sentence.  Show me ONE that's working correctly past the 6 to 12 month
stage......

Having said that, you can still give them the same functionality.

Use a dedicated backhaul system.  Trango, Airaya, Canopy, Alvarion, pick
your high end ptmp system.  Use that to feed micro cell wifi deployments
that are down at street level.

Same functionality, greater flexibility, MUCH better scalability and, I
believe, much better stability.

That help?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment
sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run
my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




----- Original Message -----
From: ISPlists
To: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com ; 'WISPA General List'
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Mesh Equipment

Does anyone have a good recommendation on some Mesh equipment.  I have a
small town that wants to provide Internet access to the entire town and I'm
thinking of using mesh technology.  Any ideas would be great.

Thanks,
Steve

________________________________


--
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/





--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to