Maybe thats a question we should be asking you. What is your friend using for MPLS?
I beleive Matt is using all Cisco.

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


----- Original Message ----- From: "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OT: about 70Mbps for under $6K


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/

--
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/

Reply via email to