At 6/20/2010 01:58 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >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
I'm terribly unfocused. Well, I started on the radio side... got my first ham ticket in the sixties, when I was 11. I got my First Phone ticket while in high school and was chief engineer of my college radio station, and got them their Class D FM license. (Much more fun than classwork.) I did some work for Frontline Wireless a couple of years ago, albeit on the backhaul planning, and have some connections now to the public safety radio community, where 700 MHz LTE is about to take off. I also did some work supporting bidders in recent spectrum auctions... mostly involving GIS analysis and license valuation. The FCC has made wireline really difficult lately, so a lot of the competitive action is on the wireless side, even if only for survival. But it's also the fun side of the business, relatively speaking; there's less fighting Ma Bell when you don't need their wires. Urban and enterprise markets still need wireline (glass, coax, or copper). Wireless is underutilized in rural areas. USF and large-area licensing policies have distorted the market. >----- >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/
