I missed the part where he said anything about deploying it outdoors :-) Daniel White 3-dB Networks http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>-----Original Message----- >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >Behalf Of Scott Carullo >Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:58 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik > > >Just a dumb question... > >If DFS is not certified on MT and is required for 5.3 operation how >could >you drum up support for planning something illegal? > >Scott Carullo >Brevard Wireless >321-205-1100 x102 > >-------- Original Message -------- >> From: "Tom DeReggi" <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:40 AM >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Subject: [WISPA] using multiple 5.3 cards in a Mikrotik >> >> I have read numerous discussions on problems regarding self >interference > >> between two mPCI cards inserted in the same SBC, on same Freqs. Some >> reporting need for 40Mhz of center channel seperation. >> >> These are the factors... >> U.FL vs MMCX connectors >> One vs two Antenna Ports on a single mpci card (for example will >second > >> unused antenna port on card without pigtail hear noise. Does the >second >port >> need to be terminated?) >> Proximity of mPCI slots to each other. (ADI/Lucaya side by side versus >MT > >> 433 Stacked) >> High power embedded amped vs low power cards. >> Software thresholds vs not (min and max receive threshold and >adapative >> noise immunity) >> Bleed over at card versus bleed over at antenna. (polarity won't help >at > >> card's port) >> Interference from Antenna port RF vs internal electronics generated RF >noise >> (used to see this in PCs if HDD were to close to MB) >> One manufacturer's card vs another's. >> Receiver overload vs interference >> >> Unsubstantiated guestimates about this topic won;t really help because >there >> are a LOT of variables contributing to the problem. >> >> MT433 or equivellent will most like work excellent if each card has a >> different freq such as 2.4, 5.8, and 900. Unless the problem is >Receiver > >> Overload. Where in that case maybe 2 CM9s could work better even if >both >on >> adjacent channel 5.3? If interference is based on Antenna placement, >well > >> thats easilly controllable by a field tech at time of installation. >But >what >> I'm concerned about is knowing that the radio system itself is made to >be > >> non-ninterfering internally. From a remote management perspective, its >going >> to be painful tracking which radio systems have to be how far apart in >> channels to not interfere troubleshooting on-the-fly, without some >baseline >> stats defined a head of time. >> >> So this brings me to three questions of higher relevence..... >> >> 1) What do we need to do to guarantee that two cards can co-exist and >be > >> used on adjacenet channels without interference at the radio card >hardware >> level (not including antenna placement factors that could allow >intference) >> >> 2) Has anyone actually used a Spectrum Analyzer or Noise meter to >actually >> measure the RF bleed between to mounted cards? With accurate results >of >what >> the interference levels are? >> >> 3) Would WISP members be interested in contributing to a small fund to >pay >> someone to actually accurately measure the results for us? >> >> I'd like to specifically know for the 433 board. If using the higher >quality >> MMCX w/ single antenna port cards (MT brand card), will 10Mhz of >channel > >> seperation be enough, to get two 5.3Ghz channels operating correctly? >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eje Gustafsson" <e...@wisp-router.com> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 4:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? >> >> >> > And 5.2 is not allowed for outdoor usage. So Franks unit is an >indoor >unit >> > I >> > would suspect he is suffering from multipath reflections. >> > >> > Besides on the radar stuff.. The way DFS is designed in MT it will >never >> > be >> > able to get certified. First of it must continuously look for and >detect >> > radar not just when it first enable the interface. Secondly it at >least > >> > did >> > a horrible job in actually detecting radar signatures. >> > >> > Besides 5.2 is not part of the band you can use even with a >certified >> > radar >> > detecting device. >> > >> > / Eje >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >On >> > Behalf Of Dennis Burgess - LTI >> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:32 PM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? >> > >> > Part of the 5.2 band. All of the radar patters are in MT, just not >> > certified. >> > >> > * ----------------------------------------------------------- >> > Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer >> > WISPA Board Member - wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org/> >> > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services >> > WISPA Vendor Member* >> > *Office*: 314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net >> > <http://www.linktechs.net/> >> > */LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training/* >> > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp> >> > >> > The information transmitted (including attachments) is covered by >the >> > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is >intended > >> > only >> > for the person(s) or entity/entities to which >> > it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged >material. >> > Any >> > review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of >any >> > action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities >other > >> > than >> > the intended recipient(s) is prohibited, If you >> > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the >material >> > from any computer. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Gino Villarini wrote: >> >> 5180.....hmmm!!! >> >> >> >> Not to bust anyones head but you are using an uncertified device on >an >> >> illegal channel >> >> >> >> Sent from my Motorola Startac... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 PM, "Josh Luthman" >> >> <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Gino - Top right corner. >> >>> >> >>> Did the CPU just jump or has it casually been like that? >> >>> >> >>> I've never had 5 radios in any board, I don't know if that would >> >>> cause a lot >> >>> of usage or not. Most any MT box I've seen is <5% CPU. A lot of >> >>> NAT as was >> >>> mentioned would be the first place I'd look. >> >>> >> >>> Josh Luthman >> >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> >>> 1100 Wayne St >> >>> Suite 1337 >> >>> Troy, OH 45373 >> >>> >> >>> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, >poorly. >> >>> --- Henry Spencer >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Neal <ke...@safelink.net> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Is this doing any NAT? Is connection tracking enabled? Do you >> >>>> have all >> >>>> unneeded packages disabled? We have a few RB600's out there and >> >>>> they do >> >>>> fine for the most part, we don't do any wireless on the 600's and >> >>>> all of >> >>>> them have the 564 daughterboard in them. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Kevin Neal >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- >> >>>> boun...@wispa.org] On >> >>>> Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser >> >>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:50 PM >> >>>> To: 'WISPA General List' >> >>>> Subject: [WISPA] is this router overloaded? >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a RB600 here that I've taken a screenshot of. No >interfaces >> >>>> are >> >>>> bridged, everything is routed and I'm noticing some lag in the >> >>>> traffic that >> >>>> passes though this device during peak use. I suspect that the 41 >> >>>> RIP routes >> >>>> might have something to do with it as actual throughput isn't >that >> >>>> much >> >>>> sometimes topping out around 8Mbps. Just want to hear from others >> >>>> and if >> >>>> there is any suggestions on how I might speed this up let me >know. >> >>>> CPU >> >>>> usage >> >>>> on it is around 40-50%. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Kurt Fankhauser >> >>>> WAVELINC >> >>>> P.O. Box 126 >> >>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> >>>> 419-562-6405 >> >>>> www.wavelinc.com >> >>>> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >---- >---- >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > 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/ >> >> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >---- >---- >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> 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/ > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-------- >WISPA Wants You! Join today! >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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
