It is not a question of how many customers will want this MTU
adjustment feature. Setting MTU size should be elementary for your
firmware guys. It is an option in any open embedded OS I have seen for
wireless management. I have seen MTU size options on $100 APs. MTU size
is something that is critical in many instances. I think you will see
more use of larger packets (requiring higher MTU settings) to add layers
for security, QoS, packet aggregation, etc. I would consider this to be
a entry level feature for any carrier grade wireless platform. Having
variable MTU sizes as an option costs you nothing but a few minutes of
your programmer's time. Not having it could cost you customers.
Regarding WISPs and VOIP. Offering VOIP myself is not a big deal for me
yet. It will be soon enough whether I am offering it or not. My
customers are starting to demand access to VOIP. They will not give a
rat's behind about excuses from me that my network was not optimized for
VOIP. I either do it right and set myself apart from other network
operators who do not care about QoS for VOIP or I ignore the wishes of
my customers. I think I would like to build my network to be VOIP ready.
Just my 2 cents.
Scriv
Patrick Leary wrote:
So according to some internal sources, this looks like something that can be
enabled in an upcoming firmware tweak. To that end, such things require me
to establish market justification. I am curious how many of you consider
this a must have? I am sincerely interested in any further feedback on this.
Matt, to further your comments that you see WISPs providing layer 2 transort
for carriers. How about VoIP? How many of you consider VoIP to be an
important part of your service future as a WISP? If so, how do you plan to
support since it cannot be done decently with the other popular 5GHz
solutions. That's not my opinion so much as the opinion of many larger
Trango and Motorola WISPs I have been talking to lately.
If a key goal of WISPs is growing ARPU, what are WISPs plans for doing that
with whatever your current technology permits?
Good discussion by the way.
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
I figured my statement would generate comments about others running
MPLS. We use Cisco BTW.
-Matt
Gino A. Villarini wrote:
Matt, one of my competitors has been doing mpls over fixed wireless since
last year. BTW: what you are using for mpls ?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
QinQ VLAN is interesting and all, but it is no longer the preferred
way to sell layer 2 transport. Certainly, many carriers continue to
use QinQ for this purpose, but that has more to do with legacy issues
than a desire to use the current best practice. With the regulatory
landscape as it is one of the most interesting and important market
segment for WISPs is selling layer 2 transport to carriers. Quite
simply, if a WISP doesn't offer it then there is a high likelihood
someone else will. One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is
the ability to deliver a full 1500 byte payload. This means that
whatever technology is used to create the virtual layer 2 circuit is
going to require a higher MTU. I know we are the only organization
that I am aware of doing MPLS over fixed wireless, but I suspect that
will change in the coming months. Further, older technologies such as
GRE tunnels all require higher MTUs, GRE being the worst requiring an
extra 24 bytes.
I know this seems like just one feature out of many when selecting a
radio vendor, but it is an absolute requirement for us. Canopy,
Trango, and Orthogon all support this in different ways, but support
it nevertheless. In the same regard, we will never buy a Trango
sector because of its lack of VLAN support.
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
As a non engineer, this is the first I have ever of this as an
issue and I
have never heard it from customers, very large or very small. Is
this a real
issue (I have already passed the comments to our PLMs for the
product line)
for operators? I do know that with firmware version 4.0 these
radios support
QinQ VLAN, which I've not heard other UL radios supporting. And one VL
sector with 4.0 will support 288 concurrent VoIP calls (VoIP only
play,
20MHz channel). That compares to 8-10 per Canopy sector and maybe
20 on a
Trango sector.
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:33 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Only 1512 also limits the use of many VPN technologies used to
tunnel to
partners, if offering wholesale transport services.
For example, IPSEC. Microtik allowed us to get over the 1512
limit, as long
as we were using WDS. Trango of course allowed the 1600, one of the
reasons
that we chose it 5 years ago. Any plans that Alvarion will make
mods to
allow larger packets?
I'd support Matt's comment, that limited to a 1512 MTU could
severally limit
its viable use for service providers, allthough Corporate clients
likely
could care less, as they'd just design around it, since it was for
their own
network.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Our setup requires the following:
1500 bytes for payload
4 bytes for VLANs
4 bytes for LDP
4 bytes for EoMPLS header
18 bytes for Ethernet header
That means we need an MTU of at least 1530. I only specified 1532
since
that is what Canopy and Orthogon use (Trango supports 1600).
Unless 1512
is your payload size, not your frame size your radios can't be
used to
backhaul an MPLS network.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
Matt,
I just got the reply to your question: the maximum packet size is
1512.
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June
15, 2006
6:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K
Does it support MTUs greater than 1500? More specifically, we are
looking
for an MTU of 1532.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
Okay, be forewarned that so this is a shameless plug, but the
data from
beta
testers of our new B100 OFDM point-to-point is worth sharing. In
the
Texas
panhandle one company is getting 62Mbps at 16 miles. In the Big
Easy, a
link
is getting 80Mbps, but it is only a one mile shot. One guy in
Nebraska
told
me Tuesday that the B series of radios (B14, B28, and B100) are
about the
most simple he has ever used (his WISP has been operational
since 2001).
The BreezeNET B100 was just announced as a commercial product.
Like all B
series, the price includes the antennas when the integrated version
(antenna
built-in) is bought. A full link has a retail of $7,990. Your
typical
discounts apply as well. And remember, since this is OFDM the B
achieves
some good NLOS performance in terms of building obstructions and
sharp
terrain.
We are pretty excited about this radio as a top choice for WISP
backhaul.
It
is targeted as a high capacity, high quality, and really simple to
install
backhaul for a very moderate price.
Those of you wanting more info, just drop me an e-mail.
Patrick
--
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/
**********************************************************************
******
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
viruses(192).
**********************************************************************
******
************
**********************************************************************
******
********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer
viruses(43).
**********************************************************************
******
********
--
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/
