Canopy does support 802.1Q at the CPE for both the customer's ethernet
interface and the built-in management interface. Not sure about VLAN
prioritization but there is some sort of high-priority queue mechanism
for voice or other critical traffic.
Patrick
Tom DeReggi wrote:
One of the requirements of layer 2 transport is the ability to
deliver a full 1500 byte payload.
Fully agree. One of the top reasons we chose Trango 5 years ago.
Its abilty to pass VLAN traffic, as well as future techknowlogies such
as MPLS that were identified but only emerging at the time.
(although Canopy is a close competitor to Trango today, with their
newer firmware features, they were not 3-5 years ago)
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.
Does Canopy use VLAN tagging at the CPE?
I didn't think they did. I thought they just did passthrough like Trango?
Canopy doesn't support bandwdith management assignment based on VLANs
does it?
How is Canopy's support for VLAN better than Trango's?
If Canopy does support it completely, it would be a valuable feature,
that is underpublicized, that buyers should consider.
VLAN support at the CPE has been a feature I have been begging Trango
to add for years, unfortuneately they have not yet.
Allthough with their new Linux platform, I'm guessing that they
probably will, as it would be really easy for them to add it.
I found that where VLAN was needed, the business markets, we usually
put a router or switch their anyway that supported VLAN, so it wasn't
necessary for the radio itself to supprot VLAN. Although, Trango's
builtin bandwidth management would be usable if they supported VLANs
and allowed assigning bandwidht per VLAN not jsut per subscriber
radio. The largest reason we had to commit to using our own bandwdith
management platform is the inabilty to distinguish between radios that
supported jsut one subscriber versus a building full of multiple
subscribers, therefore not able to sue radio enabled bandwidth
management.
If Trango had built-in VLAN (and in their bandwidth management), we
could have gotten rid of our router platform and switched to name
brand appliances that had trusted tried and true reliabilty but lacked
the bandwidth management features that were essential (such as CISCO).
PS. Who cares if Orthogon supports it, because its to darn expensive,
and if you can afford Orthogon, you can afford the extra $180 to put a
VLANrouter/VLANswitch behind it.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:17 AM
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/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/