Fred, all these years I've known you, I had no idea you had wireless knowledge like this. Usually those wireline guys are pretty "focused" in their knowledge. :-p
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 6/20/2010 11:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 6/20/2010 12:32 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > >> You know your stuff in-side out, hands down there is no argument about >> that :) >> > Thanks. :-) > > >> Getting back to your original quest... You are going to find the following:- >> >> The non-licensed wireless world is not as mature as the wire line >> world... think of today's wire less world being what the wire line world >> used to be about 10 -15 years back. Most of what you are citing from the >> Ethernet World, only became available and in common use in the last 10 >> years or so... before that, everyone was happy doing conversions from >> TDM ...(speaking loosely). >> >> In the wireless world of today, especially what folks here deal with, >> have some set outer boundaries ... a few of these are things like... >> performance, based on standard(s) , LOW COST, small in power >> consumption, etc etc... >> > It is different... in particular, the WISP community knocks a few > zeroes off of the allowable costs. I like that... you can put up a > node for what your basic Bell would pay for a jumper cable or the > like. This is the only way to make service affordable in small > clusters, like<50/node. The FCC-blessed approach, in contrast, is > to have a rural ILEC spend $20k+ per subscriber to pull glass or > hybrid fiber-copper to the neighborhood, and charge the rest of the > country for it via the USF. In this case we're in the outskirts of > an ATT exchange, so there's no USF for them, and thus no service > beyond dial tone. > > In the wireline world, we look at Vyatta as this super-low-cost > alternative to that company that rhymes with Crisco. Here, Vyatta is > that high-end alternative to a Latvian import. Those other guys, the > ones that basically control the IETF, don't play. I like that too... > > >> ... >> BTW, Aaron Kaplan was trying to say, in not too many words.. that most >> of the "mesh" networks which have utilized the traditional Wireline >> protocols, (weather they are single frequency or not) have the usual >> problem .(most wireline protocols are not concerned with link >> quality...), and this is the reason why they developed the OSLR ... >> which takes link quality into account as well when making routing >> decision.. but you are not going to find OSLR in commercial radios.... >> not at the moment... >> > That's one reason why MicroTik's HWMPplus looked attractive. It is > designed for wireless, and claims to take link conditions into > account. It looks like a direct competitor for OSLR. > > >> If you look at all of the folks who are delivering successful mesh >> products, you will find them to be using 'proprietary' developed >> mechanisms to deal with the issues..e.g. Ruckus Wireless uses it's >> special antennas and a 'zone controller' to keep the Mesh radios in tip >> top shape, by dynamically adjusting all of the parameters on a real >> time basis.. >> >> As far as finding a multi-radio board... there are a few available best >> to see the link to Wili Box site that I had sent in an earlier email... >> they list out a number of mfg. for both the sbc's and the radios.. the >> question you will have to figure out is..on what part of the 'network >> design' ... 'ip routing ?' you will be willing to make a compromise >> on...and you still have not addressed the question of >> "Antennas"....:).... after using a good working 802.11n radios with >> MiMo Antennas... it is rather hard to go back to regular stuff... >> > I'm definitely interested in MIMO. LTE, which is starting to be > rolled out in the CMRS world and, separately, in the public safety > radio world, includes MIMO, both beamforming for range and parallel > transmission for close-in speed. If I could find a pole-top system > (mesh node) that did dynamic MIMO instead of using sectorized > antennas, it'd be a serious win. Also, 4x4 MIMO is probably coming > out soon, and at 5.8 GHz a proper 4x4 antenna is still pretty small, > and has of course a lot more gain (and interference notching) than > 2x2. WiMAX can have MIMO too (it's an option), but I haven't seen it > in the unlicensed low-cost world. > > > >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet& Telecom >> >> >> >> On 6/19/2010 8:50 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >> >>> This is one of the problems with any kind of "best efforts" routing >>> or bridging. Loss does accumulate. Of course it's the >>> single-frequency meshes where loss goes totally gaga. One of the >>> advantages of Carrier Ethernet with Q-in-Q is that CIRs can be >>> assigned to different points along the way, with reserved capacity, >>> so the near-in nodes don't hog everything. I don't think HWMPplus >>> does full CE, but it may have some tools to play with. If anybody >>> can suggest a better software load for a field-mountable multi-radio >>> processor, notably one that does MEF CE, I'm not wedded to >>> MicroTik. This is interim, after all; we hope to have our own code >>> at some point. >>> >>> On the Layer 2 v 3 thing, the distinction is artificial. Off the >>> shelf, LAN-oriented L2 switching does dumb bridging, based on an >>> assumption that it's all on-site with plenty of zero-cost orange hose >>> bandwidth to play with. So STP just avoids loops. IP itself is >>> really a layer 2 protocol too! This is non-obvious, but an IP >>> address names the interface, not the application or host, and thus it >>> is also a layer 2 address. TCP/IP doesn't even have a network layer, >>> just this stub that assigns two-to-three-level second names (IP >>> addresses to interfaces whose MAC address is totally flat. If you >>> assign node IDs in Layer 2, it becomes smarter than IP, and IP can >>> thus be run as a dumb stub protocol. >>> >>> (Suggested reading: Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to >>> Fundamentals, by John Day.) >>> > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
