Dustin Jurman wrote:
> If you don't need roaming capability treat each one as it's own network or
> you could create one centralized distribution facility.
I would like roaming, actually. Ideally, the entire mesh would be on
the same LAN subnet and each user would be assigned the gateway that w
Python is an excellent cross-platform language. Py2exe can generate
.exe files from the scripts.
So, you could pretty easily compile in your .ini files for each ISP.
And Python is awful nice to write in.
- Japhy
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Larry Yunker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When it
If you don't need roaming capability treat each one as it's own network or
you could create one centralized distribution facility.
Dustin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rogelio
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
On 13 Jun 2008, at 04:28, Larry Yunker wrote:
>> It also means the program doesn't work with no Windows computers,
>> which are increasingly gaining market share.
>
> True... I don't have a Mac, so I can't building for that market.
> While I could and probably will build something for Linux
> eve
What do others here do in situations where a mesh has multiple gateways?
Say you have a large mesh and each "egrees" is a satellite uplink to a
different ISP provider.
Would you just assign multiple gateways on the DHCP server?
Or would you use something like RADIUS to assign different network
I really don't get how V3 is difficult to figure out.
Before I was doing this, I was dragging phone/data cables for the AF.
Before that I ran a Husqvarna for a logging company. Before that, I
worked on a small ranch. I'm a pretty common sence kind of guy and
don't like things that don't work rig
Very nice Larry.
Let us all know what we can do to help.
PC
Blaze Broadband
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Yunker
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:08 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] User check program
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
> When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java
> wins out.
> When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would
> have to
> disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years)
> development
> ha
When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java wins out.
When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would have to
disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years) development
has turned to the .Net platform.
Regardless, I am still seeking a 3rd
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
>>
> But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC. The point
> is to
> avoid having to install a separate "Framework". Ideally, I'd like a
> linker
> that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely
> upon.
>
T
>It also means the program doesn't work with no Windows computers,
>which are increasingly gaining market share.
True... I don't have a Mac, so I can't building for that market.
While I could and probably will build something for Linux eventually, it
seems irrelevant. If your client has Linux,
I'm using a VoIP service that the customer fills out a request form including
what number they want, I email to my VoIP guy. He will program and ship it to
them. He sends me a bill for the ATA and Shipping of about $45.00. I send the
customer a bill for $79.00 for the setup. My VoIP guy charges
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
> (1) For purposes of Deployment, this program requires .Net 2.0. The
> install
> program will check for the existence of .Net 2.0 on the target
> machine and
> will attempt to install it if it is not already installed.
> Unfortunately,
> .
I have not used it personally. I have had 3 customers try it and say it
worked but many calls dropped and lots of echo. We may have just helped
that a bunch in that we just reduced the number of hops to our network from
6 Wireless hops to 1 hop to fiber. I am just looking for a service that is
a
Actually, we need a little more information to answer this...
Is this for a hot spot?
Is this for fixed service?
Is this for a mobile (clients in a park, for instance) service?
Star-OS recently added an upper and lower limiter to radio sensitivity. In
point to point links, you can bracket the
As a rule, no.
Low noise vs. no noise.
We're getting the same ranges with less than 4 watt systems and no amps as
we did with 4 watt amped systems.
The most amazing part of that Speeds nearly always double or more!
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Better sensitivity is a BAD thing in a high noise area.
I do like the MT units that include what amounts to a squelch function.
Won't help on a laptop though. Only if you use them as both ap and cpe.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jack Unger" <[EM
Brandon has the best solution out there. It's also cost effective.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] ip accounting solns
> Anyone here use any IP accounting solutions?
>
> S
In high noise areas you'll be better off to use almost anything but WiFi.
It's the least noise tolerant protocol that I know of.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:07 PM
Subject: [WISPA] good multir
- Original Message -
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] star os config help- clarifying my message
> You'll forget that you weren't familiar with it after you get used to
> them. It's just like
Be aware that things that aggregate packets to reduce the hit on your
network come at the expense of VoIP quality.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Hardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent:
Not sure if this helps, but some of the newest realeses for the software
we are using and others has a "squelch" feature added to configure.
I played with it a bit and it seemed to be helpful. But I haven't tried
it in enough places to get a good grip on how well it improves things.
Chuck McCow
I've been using voip across my network for years now.
One of the things we did about four years ago was build our own voip
server (*) and hand out pap2's to about 100 subs for testing. We gave
them free outgoing telephone service.
Thats when we really learned how good the quality of voip is acro
The noise figure of the receiver front end or of a low noise amplifier will
help you to pick out a weak signal in the absence of interference. But you
are talking about an environment of interference. A low noise amplifier
could actually hurt in this case depending on the third order intercept
C/I ratio is a good metric
- Original Message -
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] good multiradio wifi units for noise environments?
> Jack Unger wrote:
>> Noise is
On Jun 12, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Wallace L. Walcher wrote:
> Another WISP told me Packet8 works better on a wireless network than
> Vonage.
>
It comes down to codec being used and the jitter buffer. Packet 8 has
a significant jitter buffer. There's a noticeable delay that's very
awkward. Real
Another WISP told me Packet8 works better on a wireless network than Vonage.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Voip over Wireless
> What doesn
On 12 Jun 2008, at 20:17, Rogelio wrote:
> Jack Unger wrote:
>> Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
>
> True. But aren't there some wifi units that get better radio
> sensitivity due to channel bandwidth and the noise figure of the
> radio?
With standard clients or proprie
Jack Unger wrote:
> Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
Might low noise amplifiers help in these situations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-noise_amplifier
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http:
In my days at EarthLink we did discover that the noise levels in both
the
2.4 and 5 GHz bands were much lower at street level than up on high
buildings or towers. This was both good and bad. It was good in that we had
a better signal to noise ratio. The reason being that in Philly the
buil
> What doesn't work with Vonage?
> Is it the quality of the call or the service itself?
Probably call quality.
Anecdotal evidence ahoy!
One of my field techs, who has our wireless service at his home, tried
Vonage for a few months, but the call quality was lousy. He later switched
to Packet 8 a
Jack Unger wrote:
> Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
True. But aren't there some wifi units that get better radio
sensitivity due to channel bandwidth and the noise figure of the radio?
WI
Noise is noise and will destroy performance on any radio.
Rogelio wrote:
> I am looking for multiradio wifi units that handle well in environments
> with high floor noise levels, particularly in city areas where the
> unlicensed band is very congested.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
