[WISPA] Nominating Committee Members Announced
The following four WISPA members have volunteered to serve on WISPA's Nominating Committee. Scott Reed Jerry Richardson Tim Harris (Tim also served during the last election) Paul McCall The WISPA Board appreciates the willingness of these four members to help their fellow WISPs and to assure that all the nominees for the upcoming Board election are evaluated equally. The full election schedule will be published shortly. Jack Unger (WISPA Secretary) -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com Twitter - wireless_jack 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
We've had other issues with the latest firmware, we mostly use Cisco APs, after a fw 4.0.2 radio associates, it will take anywhere from 2-10 minutes before the radio can pass any traffic, this issue wasn't present in 3.6.7. Their new management VLAN tagging feature only works with Tranzeo APs, it will ignore any tagged VLANS packets from Cisco or StarOS APs I never got anywhere with tech support and they ended up just closing the ticket. Kurt Fankhauser wrote: I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
H, I've not upgraded many of the CPQ's to 4.0.2. I've not noticed what you're talking about. I tend to only update firmware when something's not working though, so I may not have noticed for a while. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good? 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] Indoor fdx link antennas
I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). I'll probably end up using the Compex wlm54ag at 5ghz cards and a 433ah. There will be voice and video traffic across this link, which is why I'd prefer to do fdx. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Anyone know of some good antennas for this? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
Yep.. Dual r52N cards in a Dual-Pol Arc Enclosure. We can build, test and even put a base configuration on it for you if you wish. Just plug them in and aim them at each other :) * --- 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. Josh Luthman wrote: I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). I'll probably end up using the Compex wlm54ag at 5ghz cards and a 433ah. There will be voice and video traffic across this link, which is why I'd prefer to do fdx. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Anyone know of some good antennas for this? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
I was hoping there was a better dual pol antenna then the ARC ones, actually =/ They're a good 2 feet tall IIRC. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs.net dmburg...@linktechs.net wrote: Yep.. Dual r52N cards in a Dual-Pol Arc Enclosure. We can build, test and even put a base configuration on it for you if you wish. Just plug them in and aim them at each other :) * --- 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. Josh Luthman wrote: I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). I'll probably end up using the Compex wlm54ag at 5ghz cards and a 433ah. There will be voice and video traffic across this link, which is why I'd prefer to do fdx. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Anyone know of some good antennas for this? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
You won't find dual pol smaller than 2' If you do I would like to see it -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:42:21 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). I'll probably end up using the Compex wlm54ag at 5ghz cards and a 433ah. There will be voice and video traffic across this link, which is why I'd prefer to do fdx. Can anyone suggest a better alternative? Anyone know of some good antennas for this? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Dropping you an off-list response with much more detail. But also posting here to report that we are seeing a very similar problem. We are seeing the Tranzeo units fail to sustain downloads after two to five minutes when they are in router mode performing NAT. Tranzeo is blaming Mikrotik. However, we have been able to prove that the failure is unique to the Tranzeo unit. Our solution is the same as yours. Do not use the Tranzeo in router mode. Put it in bridge mod and all is well. We have tested non-Tranzeo radios in router mode and there is no problem. We are finding that the problem exists for both firmware versions 3.6.7 and 4.0.2. We are not seeing any problems with the connections or the pings when the downloads fail. It seems to be a time related issue rather than related to the amount of data moved. Download failure occurs 100% of the time when the Tranzeo is in routed mode. Downloading the same file from the same source when the Tranzeo is in bridge never fails. Download failures always occur within 2 to 5 minutes and are not dependent on the mode of file transfer. Tranzeo informed me yesterday that they will not support Mikrotik related problems. -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell Kurt Fankhauser wrote: All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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/
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
For how long? 1 year or for life? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good? 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:
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 11:42 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). Josh, at that distance, you may get away with nothing more than simple range extender antennas. I'm assuming you will have good LOS (including clear Fresnel). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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/
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
Our contract has the number of months and the start date at the top. I would imagine as long as you're paying, you're in contract and must abide by the terms and conditions. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: For how long? 1 year or for life? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good? 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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
Can you show me an example of range extender antennas? Top of the stadium on both sides, we'll be fine =) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 11:42 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). Josh, at that distance, you may get away with nothing more than simple range extender antennas. I'm assuming you will have good LOS (including clear Fresnel). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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/
Re: [WISPA] Indoor fdx link antennas
MTI has a dual-pol 23dBi panel as well. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Butch Evansbut...@butchevans.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 11:42 -0400, Josh Luthman wrote: I would like to use MikroTik to create a fdx link that's going across a stadium (that's a bit more then 100 yards). I'm thinking about looking for some small dual pol antennas best case or the ARC ones worst case (as they're monstrous). Josh, at that distance, you may get away with nothing more than simple range extender antennas. I'm assuming you will have good LOS (including clear Fresnel). -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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/
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
Thats fine in paper form. How about electronic? (i.e website signup). -RickG On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Our contract has the number of months and the start date at the top. I would imagine as long as you're paying, you're in contract and must abide by the terms and conditions. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: For how long? 1 year or for life? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good? WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
Anything that states by signing up here you have to agree to this 24 month contract or whatever. Kind of like those sites that say click agree if you're 18 or older - that keeps them from legal trouble. On 6/9/09, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Thats fine in paper form. How about electronic? (i.e website signup). -RickG On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Josh Luthmanj...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Our contract has the number of months and the start date at the top. I would imagine as long as you're paying, you're in contract and must abide by the terms and conditions. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth. --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: For how long? 1 year or for life? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto: wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good?
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Tranzeo informed me yesterday that they will not support Mikrotik related problems. HA! This is funny because back in the Tranzeo/MT disconnect days of last summer wasn't the problem traced to Tranzeo firmware not following 802.11 spec? And tranzeo still wouldn't fix it so Mikrotik jumped in and saved us all from Tranzeo's problem After this is all said and done who would ever want to deploy Tranzeo 3.65Ghz gear when they can't even get the simple 802.11 stuff right! Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Dropping you an off-list response with much more detail. But also posting here to report that we are seeing a very similar problem. We are seeing the Tranzeo units fail to sustain downloads after two to five minutes when they are in router mode performing NAT. Tranzeo is blaming Mikrotik. However, we have been able to prove that the failure is unique to the Tranzeo unit. Our solution is the same as yours. Do not use the Tranzeo in router mode. Put it in bridge mod and all is well. We have tested non-Tranzeo radios in router mode and there is no problem. We are finding that the problem exists for both firmware versions 3.6.7 and 4.0.2. We are not seeing any problems with the connections or the pings when the downloads fail. It seems to be a time related issue rather than related to the amount of data moved. Download failure occurs 100% of the time when the Tranzeo is in routed mode. Downloading the same file from the same source when the Tranzeo is in bridge never fails. Download failures always occur within 2 to 5 minutes and are not dependent on the mode of file transfer. Tranzeo informed me yesterday that they will not support Mikrotik related problems. -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell Kurt Fankhauser wrote: All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Wasn't Tranzeo that diagnosed the disconnect problem? On 6/9/09, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: Marlon, I would stongly advise against doing any firmware upgrades to 4.0.2 for the sake of your customers. We almost lost ours last year with the Tranzeo re-asocciation issues last time around Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? H, I've not upgraded many of the CPQ's to 4.0.2. I've not noticed what you're talking about. I tend to only update firmware when something's not working though, so I may not have noticed for a while. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Well I thought that it happened this way, I may be wrong, - Tranzeo didn't want to look at the problem and somebody on the list did some packet sniffing and the Tranzeo's were randomly sending a bunch of 0o0o0o0o0's and the Mikrotik didn't know how to interpret that so it dropped all the clients and started over. The random 0's was not supposed to be in the 802.11 spec and I think that Mikrotik did a work around that ignored them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Wasn't Tranzeo that diagnosed the disconnect problem? On 6/9/09, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: Marlon, I would stongly advise against doing any firmware upgrades to 4.0.2 for the sake of your customers. We almost lost ours last year with the Tranzeo re-asocciation issues last time around Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? H, I've not upgraded many of the CPQ's to 4.0.2. I've not noticed what you're talking about. I tend to only update firmware when something's not working though, so I may not have noticed for a while. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. 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:
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
http://www.tranzeofaq.com/oct102008.html ryan Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Well I thought that it happened this way, I may be wrong, - Tranzeo didn't want to look at the problem and somebody on the list did some packet sniffing and the Tranzeo's were randomly sending a bunch of 0o0o0o0o0's and the Mikrotik didn't know how to interpret that so it dropped all the clients and started over. The random 0's was not supposed to be in the 802.11 spec and I think that Mikrotik did a work around that ignored them. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Wasn't Tranzeo that diagnosed the disconnect problem? On 6/9/09, Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com wrote: Marlon, I would stongly advise against doing any firmware upgrades to 4.0.2 for the sake of your customers. We almost lost ours last year with the Tranzeo re-asocciation issues last time around Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? H, I've not upgraded many of the CPQ's to 4.0.2. I've not noticed what you're talking about. I tend to only update firmware when something's not working though, so I may not have noticed for a while. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Kevin Lamothe wrote: We've had other issues with the latest firmware, we mostly use Cisco APs, after a fw 4.0.2 radio associates, it will take anywhere from 2-10 minutes before the radio can pass any traffic, this issue wasn't present in 3.6.7. Their new management VLAN tagging feature only works with Tranzeo APs, it will ignore any tagged VLANS packets from Cisco or StarOS APs I never got anywhere with tech support and they ended up just closing the ticket. Do you have a ticket number? ryan Kurt Fankhauser wrote: I thought I mentioned that all AP's are Mikrotik v3.15. I gave up on the Tranzeo AP's a LONG time ago Best decision I ever made. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:38 AM To: WISPA General List Cc: Brent Thrift Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Kurt, do yourself a favor and just drop the Tranzeo ap's. The 6000 and 6600 units that I use absolutely suck. The 4.0.2 firmware helped quite a bit with the lock up issues, but now the speeds suck. I've gotten rid of almost all of them in favor of MT APs. Life is soo good now! It wouldn't be so bad if the factory didn't try to dodge these problems. If they can't duplicate the issue send someone out to those of us that can! This run around crap is costing far more money than anyone seems to believe. There's no way I'm gonna even try a Tranzeo 3650 product or anything else that requires that I rely on them. Good luck. marlon - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser k...@wavelinc.com To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? All was running fine on our CPE's running version 3.6.7 and did the upgrade to version 4.0.2. Now every CPE that is running in router mode doing NAT will randomly not pass new traffic. Example: running a constant ping to the AP all of the sudden will start dropping pings. But the funny thing is that if you are doing a download the download will not be interrupted at all. Try to check email or bring up a new page and nothing. After a while the pings will start replying and then normal surfing will resume. This problem took forever to diagnose and finally narrowed it down to the new 4.0.2 Tranzeo firmware running on CPQ's and SL2's only while doing NAT. The temporary fix for clients that have noticed the problem is to set the Tranzeo back up into bridge mode. Once in bridge mode all problems go away. All access points are Mikrotik based running 3.15 firmware. This problem does not happen on a Mikrotik based CPE doing NAT. Been emailing Tranzeo tech support for over a week and they are again playing the blame game and pointing the finger at Mikrotik telling me that Mikrotik doesn't do double NAT even though double NAT has been working fine for the past 5 years until now. Running NAT on the CPE side and then on the core router. Can anyone else verify this as Tranzeo claims that they can not reproduce in the lab. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com ss/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers routes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwickjeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work. t...@mattke.net Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Anyone available for some BGP support? Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Tranzeo informed me yesterday that they will not support Mikrotik related problems. Dude, I have this network problem, on my network, and because you are on this list, I want you to fix it for me... at your cost. OH! and it requires replacing a tower, please pay for the Time, materials and labor to do this. OH! and I am your direct competitor. THEN, after you fix MY problem on YOUR dime/time, I'll put out a press release that says that you were not doing things right in the first place and it was your fault. Really, do you expect Tranzeo to set aside some engineering types to this issue, then send Mtik the solution so they can fix the problem and then they slap them in the face with What's new in 3.15: added workaround for non-standards compliant CPE with timestamp issue HA! This is funny because back in the Tranzeo/MT disconnect days of last summer wasn't the problem traced to Tranzeo firmware not following 802.11 spec? And tranzeo still wouldn't fix it so Mikrotik jumped in and saved us all from Tranzeo's problem Not so fast! :) We (Tranzeo and I, mostly Damian) opened a ticket with Mtik (Ticket#2008091666000531): Tranzeo laid out a packet sniff from Network Instruments Wireless Observer along with my wireshark packet sniff showing in brief that the Mtik AP was throwing out random zeros in it's beacon frame timestamp. They stated that when a zero is recieved, the CPE are to assume that there is a change in the settings of the wireless AP and they should disconnect and reaquire. (think of this as an INSTANT change from 802.11b to 802.11b/g and all your clients disconnect and reconnect, because, well, there is a change in the AP's capabilities. This is reasonable reaction to a notification of a change of settings. Mtik replied with IEEE Std 802.11-2007 section 11.1.1.1 (located here if you have trouble sleeping: (http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11-2007.pdf *YAWN* let me tell you, this explains why wireless engineers are who they are.. whoa!) Mtik continued and said that the wording of this standard allowed for a timestamp of zero sent from the AP and basically the CPE should deal with it and play through. Damian learned some Latvian so he could swear in a diffrent language than Canadian. Honestly, he likes to be legal in APs etc and just cannot see why us ULS users would flaunt the FCC _and_ put up with these Mtik bugs. I mentioned something under my breath regarding CPQs and firware updates about 3 years ago... The nice gentleman engineer at Tranzeo placed some virtual CPE on a bench facing a Mtik AP and was able to reproduce the issue. He then released to me some very alpha firmware that would email him with a warning whenever a CPQ saw a zero frame. This alpha software would also IGNORE this frame and keep on trucking. This alpha firmware was given with the stern warning that if I changed ANYTHING on the AP I would have to really recycle it to make all the CPE realize there was a change. This poor engineer was probably overwhelmed when I installed this firmware on 110 CPQs in about an hour. I watched the log file generated by these emails and the events had to be happening in the hundreds per hour. Mtik was silent so I poked Uldis a bit with a comment about silence from Latvia and no National holidays I could see along with: While there is no specific _requirement_ to treat Zero as a reset, _most_ wireless CPE (including yours!) consider this to be a flag to reset. If you don't then when the card is reset, the client will ignore all of the changes until the time stamp the last one. This is the same as driving on the right side of the road. There is no _LAW_ saying you should do so, but you do because everyone else does! Perhaps there is a reason to drive on the left but not in this case! :) I even showed Mtik support that even THIER Mtik brand CPE were disconnecting in some instances! Mtik replied with a bit of beta software that seems to have helped. It is posted to the forum and only need be installed on APs. (remember CPE don't give out timestamps) This is the second or third iteration of this software. After this is all said and done who
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
What are you using for an AP? Tranzeo or Mikrotik? Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Kunze Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
yeah Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers routes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwickjeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work. t...@mattke.net Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Anyone available for some BGP support? Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures
Whatever the contract states. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:15 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures For how long? 1 year or for life? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Mike Hammettwispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: I think I learned in high school business law class that payment of a bill constitutes agreement with a contract. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:47 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures Right on TOS and AUP but not the contract. If I understand contractual agreements correctly, all terms must be clear to both parties. So, just cause I pay a bill doesnt mean I understand my full obligations such as length of terms, etc. I suspect that presenting the actual contract electronically when the customer signs up provides full disclosure but I'd love to hear from anyone that is using it now an dif their lawyer blessed the proceedure. -RickG On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:57 PM, D. Ryan Spottrsp...@cspott.com wrote: I think in most states paying the bill obligates you to the terms of service/contract. ryan Charles Wyble wrote: Ah. Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. RickG wrote: Having an AUP is fine but it doesnt spell out the terms of a specific obligation between you the end user. The big carriers obligate you to two year contracts when you agree online so I'm assuming we can do the same. -RickG On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Charles Wyblechar...@thewybles.com wrote: The big carriers don't require a signature on a contract. They also don't do (free/near free) installs either. I don't know if there is a signed contract if you pay for an install. Yes I realize this is a very important differentiator that we can provide, however I don't feel a signed contract is necessary. An AUP is an excellent idea as a general rule, however if they are transiting bits on your network, you have the right and obligation to defend that network. If you don't, you risk other operators dropping traffic from your IP rnage /AS. Your free to enforce your AUP with impunity. Failure to do so is the sole reason that bits of evil reach our border routers. A few simple route filters, and spam/botnets would be stopped. Subscribe to the Don't Route Or Peer List from Spamhaus (http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso), and monitor outbound traffic. *sighs* Martha Huizenga wrote: Exactly, we send the contract with the install and then get it back when the install is done. Works fine. Jason Hensley wrote: Wow. Seems like a waste of time and resources. If I mailed contracts like that here I'd lose half my install opportunities because they would never send the contract back. Send a contract with the installer, get them to sign it before they install, give one copy to customer, bring one back, done deal. If nothing else, get an electronic as an initial confirmation, then get an actual signature at install. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:42 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Electronic Signatures We currently use a two-year contract for customers. Right now we gather the information, generate a contract, USMail it to the customer and wait for them to USMail it back after they sign it before we schedule an installation. We would like to reduce the time from initial contact to installation. One option we are looking at is electronic signature on the contract. We have done some research into doing this, but thought it would be good to get some other input. If you do electronic signatures, how do you do it? If you use a third party to certify the signatures, who do you use? What is good about them? What is not so good? 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:
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:02 PM, David wrote: You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the longer a route will look. Assuming your upstream didn't increase your local preference, which is normally the case these days. AS prepending is no longer the ideal methodology for traffic engineering. -Matt 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
I route at every device. ;-) Well, at least at every location. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: D. Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:38 PM To: rku...@colusanet.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the longer a route will look. David -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:57 PM To: WISPA General List; can...@believewireless.net Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Should I not prepend to favor our link? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:52 PM To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP You mean prepending AS numbers, not routes. Prepending will also lengthen the the calculation, so if they are prepending to you, this would the route through your link less favorable to the outside world. Are you seeing the prepend coming from their routers? On a cisco it would be show ip neighbor ipaddress received-routes, if you are seeing the prepend from them, check and see if you are forwarding them on to your upstream show ip neighbor ipaddress of upstream interface advertised-routes. If you see these in both places, it's most likely your upstream not allowing the prepend. Regards Michael Baird Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers routes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwickjeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work. t...@mattke.net Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Anyone available for some BGP support? Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 - --- 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/ --- - 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/
Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP
If you provide the prefixes in question it would be easier. You may want to have your customer check with their other upstreams to see what communities they support. BGP communities that adjust local preference are preferred over prepending. See http://www.onesc.net/communities/ for a listing for a number of providers. -Matt On Jun 9, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: Exactly, The problem is not for own ip space, its for a downstream customer ips space, they have several providers and want to favor our link for some ip ranges. They are prepending such ranges to the other providers to favor our link. Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:02 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP You prepend the link you want to disfavor. The more you prepend the longer a route will look. David -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:57 PM To: WISPA General List; can...@believewireless.net Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Should I not prepend to favor our link? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:52 PM To: can...@believewireless.net; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP You mean prepending AS numbers, not routes. Prepending will also lengthen the the calculation, so if they are prepending to you, this would the route through your link less favorable to the outside world. Are you seeing the prepend coming from their routers? On a cisco it would be show ip neighbor ipaddress received-routes, if you are seeing the prepend from them, check and see if you are forwarding them on to your upstream show ip neighbor ipaddress of upstream interface advertised-routes. If you see these in both places, it's most likely your upstream not allowing the prepend. Regards Michael Baird Did you notify your upstream that you be advertising your customers routes? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Jeff Broadwickjeffl...@comcast.net wrote: I recommend Tony Mattke for dynamic routing work. t...@mattke.net Regards, Jeff -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Need BGP Support ASAP Anyone available for some BGP support? Im providing Internet service to another ISP, they are prepending some routes to favor our link, still my router doesnt acknoledge it Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 --- - - --- 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/ -- - - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Right! At every location is GREAT! but if you have 3 APs at the top of a tower, you don't route on each AP, you route at the bottom of the tower right? ryan Mike Hammett wrote: I route at every device. ;-) Well, at least at every location. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: D. Ryan Spott rsp...@cspott.com Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:38 PM To: rku...@colusanet.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ??? Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
In our case we are using staros APs. We like to have the CPE set to router mode so we don't have to deal with any of the client equipment on their side of our unit at their place. That way we don't care if they change out a piece of equipment. We are having no problem with any Tranzeo equipment that is set to bridge mode. We love the Tranzeo CPQs. Our problems are when the CPQs are in router mode. There is a definite problem that we can replicate 100% of the time. We have eliminated all of the causes of the problem with the exception of the Tranzeo CPQ. All units have 4.0.2 and we do not believe the problem is with an upgrade in the firmware because we can replicate the problem in version 3.6.7 as well. I just moved one client today that was in router mode back to bridge mode because they couldn't do their UPS shipping until we did. Apparently, we may need to move all of them to bridge mode but with hundreds of units out there I really don't like that idea. steve D. Ryan Spott wrote: Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
Do you have any ethreal data you can share? ryan Steve Smith wrote: In our case we are using staros APs. We like to have the CPE set to router mode so we don't have to deal with any of the client equipment on their side of our unit at their place. That way we don't care if they change out a piece of equipment. We are having no problem with any Tranzeo equipment that is set to bridge mode. We love the Tranzeo CPQs. Our problems are when the CPQs are in router mode. There is a definite problem that we can replicate 100% of the time. We have eliminated all of the causes of the problem with the exception of the Tranzeo CPQ. All units have 4.0.2 and we do not believe the problem is with an upgrade in the firmware because we can replicate the problem in version 3.6.7 as well. I just moved one client today that was in router mode back to bridge mode because they couldn't do their UPS shipping until we did. Apparently, we may need to move all of them to bridge mode but with hundreds of units out there I really don't like that idea. steve D. Ryan Spott wrote: Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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/
Re: [WISPA] Latest Tranzeo Firmware = Broken NAT ???
I do. I will drop it to you offlist. D. Ryan Spott wrote: Do you have any ethreal data you can share? ryan Steve Smith wrote: In our case we are using staros APs. We like to have the CPE set to router mode so we don't have to deal with any of the client equipment on their side of our unit at their place. That way we don't care if they change out a piece of equipment. We are having no problem with any Tranzeo equipment that is set to bridge mode. We love the Tranzeo CPQs. Our problems are when the CPQs are in router mode. There is a definite problem that we can replicate 100% of the time. We have eliminated all of the causes of the problem with the exception of the Tranzeo CPQ. All units have 4.0.2 and we do not believe the problem is with an upgrade in the firmware because we can replicate the problem in version 3.6.7 as well. I just moved one client today that was in router mode back to bridge mode because they couldn't do their UPS shipping until we did. Apparently, we may need to move all of them to bridge mode but with hundreds of units out there I really don't like that idea. steve D. Ryan Spott wrote: Why you would route AT the AP boggles my mind... Routing Before the AP is the way to go. Why add additional load on an AP when it should be working on sending and receiving wireless data. ryan Rick Kunze wrote: I've got about 50 or 60 CPQ's and SL2's out there, as well as a dozen or so 6000's, some for up to 4 or 5 years. I've never had a single problem with any of them failing to pass traffic as mentioned in the thread. I just upgraded one small town to 4.0.2, a couple 6000's and a couple dozen CPE's in router/NAT mode. No calls from any customers . . . everything seems normal. IMO, the Tranzeo stuff has been fine. All AP's however are bridged in my case. Rk 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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/ -- Steve Smith, Chase 3000, PO Box 760, 554 Kramer St., Imperial, NE 69033, 308 882 3000 office, 308 883 3001 cell 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] Multiuse Cat5
FYI: Found a cable that is indoor/ourdoor/uv/db rated. CM 1202L5DB - http://www.contractorswire.com/CatalogProducts.asp?nProductsID=134 Has a dual jacket that has a powder gel barrier which seals against moisture. Outer jacket is UV/DB, inner jacket is CL. Only comes in black. I think we paid 150/1000' spool. Used it for the first time yesterday and I like it. One roll for any need except towers. Contractors Wire and Cable 6611 Preston Avenue Suite A Livermore CA 94551 1-800-444-8816 http://www.contractorswire.com/index.asp Broadband for Business Public and Private WiFi Jerry Richardson VP Operations 925-260-4119 _ ConsuWISP RF Topographical Coverage Maps Network Optimization and Planning Network Design and Troubleshooting Installer and Technician Training P Please consider the environment before printing this email aircloud_WebTiny_color_white_back.jpg 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] Cisco: IP traffic to hit 667 exabytes by 2013
http://telephonyonline.com/global/news/cisco-ip-traffic-0609/ These wireless MfG's better be getting us something that will work for this. Scottie Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. 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/
