Feature rich firmware: -lets start by firmware that actually works and is really tested before release
-Vlan capability on the SM to tag packets with Q, also with Vlan filtering -NAT cabability on the SM with DHCP Client and Server plus Port filtering and DMZ -Traffic filter in bridge mode, with option to filter ARP, PPPOE, Multicast, SNMP, DHCP server/client, SMP (port 135 and 445) ect. -Diff serv to identify and prioritize packets -Virtual High Priority RF Channel, allocates x amount of kbps to a virtual priority rf channel for QOS packets -Bandwidth management with CIR, MIR and burst settings -Ethernet port speed settings that actually works "ducking" -Lots of stats .... GPS sync is extra $$. True, but this is truly what makes canopy works and you have nice 3rd party options like www.lastmilegear.com and www.packetflux.com for the gps sync units that start @ less than $300 for a 4 port Sync unit NMS software is extra $$. True, but the the last version of this Prizm 2.0 is a monster of software with lots of features .. it is a tool that any 200 + cpe wisp should have. Auto update of network, auto discovery of CPE's with auto ip assignment, lots of snmp monitoring, auto provisioning tools, external connection interface for billing , cmr and other hooks 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 Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:06 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] vendor specs I guess I left the door open for comments like "feature rich firmware".... what does THAT mean? It definately doesn't mean the SM number stays the same on the AP with each reboot or SM re-association.. ;) GPS sync is extra $$. NMS software is extra $$. The pricing I listed was MSRP (or what I could find online with a quick search)... and even with your posted prices, the Trango $149 CPE (10Mbps sustained, auto up/down speed ratio) is still a better buy. :) Travis Microserv Gino A. Villarini wrote: >Let me comment on this .... > >#Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) > >is this MRSP ? you can buy this the AP for $800 +/- , Advantage for $1500 > >#C/I advantage >#Fixed up/down ratio > >Add GPS Sync, Feature rich firmware, NMS Software, Strong support, Good >promos, Only Manufacturer to offer price conscious upgrade program, third >party products (dishes , gps syncs) ect ect ect > >#$490 CPE ($737 advantage) .. yikes with CPE you have 3 options : > >Canopy Lite (1mbps) $170 +/- 25 packs >Canopy (14 Mbps Burst) $225 +/- >Canopy Advantage (14 Mbps sustained ) $550 ( way over priced IMHO ) > > > >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 Travis Johnson >Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 10:31 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: [WISPA] vendor specs > >Hi, > >I changed the subject line to reflect more the direction of this >discussion (Trango vs. Canopy vs. Alvarion)... ;) > >This is just off the top of my head, and I would love to see more data >on any of these radios: > >Trango 5830AP - $1,079 retail >Dual polarity >10Mbps (auto up/down ratio) >Easy management (CLI and web) >$149 CPE ($199 up to 10 miles) > >Canopy 5.7 AP - $970 (Advantage $1,974) >C/I advantage >Fixed up/down ratio >$490 CPE ($737 advantage) > >Alvarion VL AP - $4,500 (rough retail) >36Mbps and 40,000pps >$1,000 CPE > >For whatever it's worth, we have over 2,500 CPE in the air and over >2,000 are Trango (900mhz, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz). The Trango product has worked >very well for us, and we are located on some mountaintop repeater >locations that literally have over 100 antennas (paging, HAM, WISPs, >etc.) within 100 yards of each other. > >Our biggest problem is frequency availability at all (regardless of >radio choice)... we have a 2.4ghz AP at a repeater station that is >"full". We attempted to install a second sector today and ran a site >survey at this location.... across the entire 2.4ghz band, the "average" >signals ranged from -25 to -55 at the best. :( > >Travis >Microserv > >Jon Langeler wrote: > > > >>Tom, I have nothing to gain or lose by telling you what we've not only >>extensivley tested but also experienced over 6 years. We started using >>canopy since it began shipping and at least 100 trango SU between 3 >>different towers since beta. I just hate to see fellow wisp protest >>that there isn't a good product and struggle when their actually is a >>pretty darn good one...and on top of that has an upgrade path in it's >>vision, it keeps getting better. >> >>ARQ does not affect C/I like FEC does for example. When you say ARQ is >>fixing any resiliance problems that may be true. But you'll also >>suffer from increased latency and less throughput during those >>retransmissions. Not good if you want to support VOIP and keep >>customers happy. Having a low C/I means the system will be stable more >>often and maintain a lower retrans. Trango's ARQ is not even an option >>in the 5800 model which is what you and I probably have a decent >>percentage of in our Trango networks. Having a low C/I requirement >>affects other things like increases the range of a product. I'm laying >>out facts, you can convince yourself of whatever you want... >> >>Jon Langeler >>Michwave Tech. >> >>Tom DeReggi wrote: >> >> >> >>>Nice try, but I've found that comment to be not at all true. I have >>>often chosen to avoid canopy user's channels, but because I am a good >>>WISP neighbor, not because I had to. Why fight if you can >>>cooperate. On a SPEC sheet Canopy does boast the lowest C/I. But >>>Trango's specified C/I was reported before considering ARQ. And >>>Trango has always underspec'd their spec sheets. C/I is not nearly >>>as relevant as SNR resilience anyway. With Arq, we've easilly ran >>>links as low as 4 db above the average noise floor, reliably. There >>>is VERY little difference between the Trango and Canopy C/I in real >>>world usage. The Trango just adds more polarities as more options to >>>work around it, when needed. One of the reasons we like Trango is >>>its resilience to noise, that gives us the abilty to fight it out and >>>stand our ground. The Foxes w/ DISH, have excellent ARQ and >>>resilience to Noise, within their range and LOS. >>> >>>When we start to have trouble with Trango, is when we start to push >>>the limits of the technology. Its a LOS technology that we attempt >>>NLOS with. My arguement is also not that we can't be the last man >>>standing. Its that when the battle happens the customer sees it, and >>>the customer does not tolerate it. IF a Canopy and Trango went to >>>war, one might survive a little better than the other, but ultimately >>>both customers would feel the interference the majority of the time. >>> >>>Tom DeReggi >>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> >> >> -- 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/
