Inline On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Fred Goldstein <fgoldst...@ionary.com> 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... >
My opinion is that the major work that is done on routing / network hardware by the companies with deep pockets is also done for companies with deep pockets. So, what you get is stuff designed to solve "national" problems, not "small town needs Internet", and then, if needed, is just scaled down--with varying degrees of success. It's not just a matter of wireless running 10 years behind wireline--wireless really doesn't have anyone with deep pockets addressing these sorts of issues. Large-scale mesh from hard-core networking companies doesn't exist: the major service providers that do wireless pretty much all universally backhaul over wireline and avoid these issues. Unless the trajectory changes, I'd say that these issues aren't on a path to ever being solved, let alone inside of 10 years ;). So, it's probably a matter of roll your own or push back on the wireless vendors (Ubiquiti, Mikrotek), although I'm sure that they run on ridiculously thin margins and would need enough of a coalition to convince them that they could see any ROI by bringing this to maturity; it's also complicated by the fact that a lot of the vendors core expertise is RF, not IP. For what it's worth Fred, I somewhat disagreed with your assertion of "IP is just another layer two protocol" that made in a previous post. In the end, the power of IP is in its hierarchical nature which lets you summarize, which is critical to the amount of processing that it takes to process network decisions on a network of non-trivial size. That said, as long as you route, not bridge customers onto your mesh network, then the mesh network itself will remain small enough that layer two is perfectly reasonable. If you do HMWPplus, then I'd assume that you'd at some point need to scale by splitting mesh into multiple meshes; OLSRD is probably going to handle a large number of nodes more gracefully. However, as has been pointed out, having link-quality information as part of the routing decision is critical and, in the end, it is a lot more elegant to put that on layer two than on layer 3 like OLSRD does. You nailed a fundamental problem which is the lack of any sort of carrier / metro Ethernet style setup. For most traditional wireline vendors in this space, there are two basic components to making this work--classes of services / QOS (router side) and then the provisioning system which actually knows what's provisioned and what the remaining capacity on various spans is. The missing piece in this puzzle for wireless is the provisioning system, although the algorithms for doing route/bandwidth capacity calculations in a many-to-many mesh architecture are non-trivial to develop, to say the least. If you limited yourself to a ring-architecture, it would be much more doable. >>... >>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: 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/
