Ok,
After some thought I have a suggestion for you Mac.
1st, your dealing with a hospital and I'm assuming your connecting their
buildings together to connect their lans from each building and tying
them all together.
Under that assumption, I wouldn't think a PtMP solution is really the
solution.
Hospitals have losts of money or at least spend lots of money, why would
a few radios be any diferent?
2nd they have some bandwidth usage that can be taxing.
An example such as MRI's and CAT scans. Not sure if you know what MRI
files are like, but generally their mega size files, gigs of pictures of
peoples brains\bodies sliced into thin slivers with lots of slices at
very high resolution.
When hospitals need a radiologist to give them a quick assesment of a
patients condition in life threatening situations, they use the network
to get the radiologist the files so he can tell thm how to proceed
quickly. They do NOT want to wait. Time is of the essence.
Around here they call the radiologist at home if he's home and they
don't want to wait a half an hour for him to get into the hospital. So I
have some experience here because the radiologist is my customer and
I've seen him in action.
The MRI and Radiologist is just one example of heavy usage. I'm sure
there are others.
Now your connecting the buildings together. Do you want a slow
connection connecting each building together using PtMP where the AP can
be bogged down because it's now the center hub of the network connecting
all the buildings tohether?
Preferably not.
What you should be doing is using a multiple ap's and su's or multiple
PtP's with each ap providing a seperate connection for each building.
This way you've increased the capacity of the network connectivity,
added increased performance and eliminated an ap from becoming the hub
of their network.
You could use 10MHz channel widths if you need to be conservative in
spectrum.
What I wouldn't want to do to a hospital is be cheap out the get go.
Generally the hospitals networks admins are the types of admins that
think they are network gods.
So you don't want to start out with a typical low cost broadband
delivery offering and ley them pick you apart if it's not up to snuff
for them.
You should give them choices and allow them to make the decision.
I would offer them a package using indivisdual PtP links and a cheaper
package using PtMP and let them choose based on what they feel they will
need.
You may be surprised that they will choose to spend a few extra thousand
dollars to do the job right.
I'm also thinking that an su that can only deliver 6 megs is really NOT
something I'd be offering anyone in these situations. I mean why wire a
network with 10/100/1000 and then have a 6 meg choke???
What we do as a wisp delivering broadband is not the same thing as a
hospitals network, or anyone elses network.
Anyways, food for thought. I'd hate to see you go in with just one idea
that may make you not look as good as you are.
George
Patrick Leary wrote:
We do not poll, deliberately. Polling has lots of overhead, especially
as users are aggregated since all users are being polled whether they
have something to "say" or not. We don't use pure scheduling or pure
CSMA/CA either. We do implement various ways of concatenation (packet
aggregation) and some other tricks to reduce multipoint overhead as much
as possible.
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ALVARION VL 4.0 AP
Is the ALVARION VL 4.0 AP a polling radio system?
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
